[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACTS OF THE OBAMA CEQ'S FINAL GUIDANCE FOR GHG EMISSIONS AND
THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-615 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Jeff Denham, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Paul Cook, CA Lois Capps, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR Jared Polis, CO
Garret Graves, LA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Dan Newhouse, WA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 21, 2016.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Goldfuss, Hon. Christy, Managing Director, Council on
Environmental Quality, The White House, Washington, DC..... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Congress of the United States, April 27, 2015 Letter to
Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, Council on
Environmental Quality...................................... 24
Open Letter Regarding Climate Change from Concerned Members
of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, September 20,
2016....................................................... 5
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPACTS OF THE OBAMA CEQ'S FINAL GUIDANCE FOR
GHG EMISSIONS AND THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, LaMalfa,
Westerman, Graves, Newhouse, Hice, Radewagen, Mooney, Hardy;
Grijalva, Tsongas, Huffman, Lowenthal, Dingell, and Gallego.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order, as well as
the audience, even though you haven't said a word already this
morning.
The committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
impacts of the Obama CEQ's final guidance for greenhouse gas
emissions and the effects of climate change. Under Rule 4(f),
any oral opening statements at this hearing are limited to the
Chair, Ranking Member, Vice Chair, and a designee of the
Ranking Member. This will also allow us to hear from our
witness sooner, and help Members keep their schedules.
Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent that all the
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Now I am going to recognize myself for my 5-minute opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Today's hearing is focusing on the Obama
Administration Council on the Environmental Quality's sweeping
final guidance on greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, we
received testimony on a similar draft guidance, that it was not
legally enforceable. Now, with a stroke of the pen, CEQ is
finalizing a voluntary guidance that has to be obeyed, forcing
every Federal agency to enact regulations to consider
greenhouse gas emissions for literally all NEPA permitting
reviews.
For CEQ, it appears that advancing a questionable agenda at
all costs is more important that ensuring that the law,
science, and sound economic reasonings are going to be honored.
NEPA now requires consideration of individual projects'
impact on the environment, including carbon emissions. Most
Federal agencies have correctly concluded that such projects
have no significant impact on global carbon emissions.
Not satisfied, CEQ's new voluntary guidances, which must be
obeyed, greatly expands its interpretation of NEPA, stating
that all NEPA reviews should now explicitly consider a higher
bar of impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.
This guidance, rather than helping the environment, in the
end will hurt it by driving up the costs for processing of
permitting activities that support millions of jobs. This
increase of cost of everything from energy projects to highway
maintenance to small business construction, will have a real
impact on the wallets of everyday American families, families
who have already seen their stagnant incomes stretched to the
limit by government policies.
Hundreds of NEPA-related lawsuits have been filed against
the Federal Government during this Administration, and this
guidance will encourage these litigious groups, who already
view NEPA as a means to slow or shut down projects they oppose
politically or ideologically to sue away. Entities that have
already spent significant resources on NEPA processes to
complete environmental impact statements will face greater
uncertainty as a result of this guidance. Exaggerated impacts
for even the smallest of future projects will likely mean that
projects that are waiting in the pipeline will be unjustly
denied or they will become too costly to complete.
This guidance inappropriately promotes a cost-benefit
analysis that lacks peer review, called the Social Cost of
Carbon. This is one of the Administration's least transparent
environmental decisions, developed behind closed doors by the
Office of Management and Budget and other unelected Federal
administrative officers.
Perhaps most concerning is the apparent lack of awareness
of the limits of executive authority and the appropriate role
of Congress. Executive over-reach has become the hallmark of
this Administration, and will be part of its legacy. This
Administration's concept that the end justifies the means and
if it can't get something through Congress, then finding other
ways of accomplishing its goals, stretches the limits of our
Constitution.
A few years ago, the President failed to get his cap-and-
trade and climate change agenda through Congress, a Congress, I
might add, which held Democratic majorities. He famously
declared that using Congress was just one way of skinning the
cat, but that is not the only way. Apparently this CEQ draft
guidance is apparently that other way. That is not how our
system of government is supposed to work.
If a project would have no significant impact on global
carbon emissions, or the global climate, then that project's
impact on the human environment is zero, full stop, end of
story. This should be the end of assessments required by NEPA.
CEQ does not get to alter NEPA just because they do not like
the results it produces. That approach of interpreting the law
is dangerous, and it is an abuse of power the Constitution was
created to minimize and prevent.
NEPA, which was enacted in 1970, desperately needs to be
reviewed, updated, and improved, as state environmental
protection acts have, and as Canada has with theirs. However,
it is Congress' responsibility, through oversight and passing
legislation, not the executive branch's responsibility through
guidances.
As Congress begins this needed look at NEPA, CEQ must be
content with the way the law is written, not how they
mistakenly interpret it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Today's hearing will focus on the Obama Administration Council on
Environmental Quality's sweeping final guidance on greenhouse gas
emissions. Last year, we received testimony that similar draft guidance
was ``not legally enforceable.'' Now, with the stroke of a pen CEQ is
finalizing it, thus forcing Federal agencies to enact regulations to
consider greenhouse gas emissions for literally all National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting reviews. For CEQ, it appears
advancing a questionable agenda at all costs is more important than
ensuring that the law, science, or sound economic reasoning are
honored.
NEPA now requires consideration of individual projects' impact on
the environment, including carbon emissions. Most Federal agencies have
correctly concluded that such projects have no significant impact on
global carbon emissions. Not satisfied, CEQ's guidance greatly expands
its interpretation of NEPA, stating all NEPA reviews should now
explicitly consider a much higher bar of ``impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions.''
This guidance, rather than help the environment, will in the end
hurt it by driving up costs for the processing of permitted activities
that support millions of jobs. This will increase [increasing] the cost
of everything from energy projects to highway maintenance to small
business construction, having a very real impact on the wallets of
everyday American families, families who have already seen their
stagnant incomes stretched to the limit by government policies.
Hundreds of NEPA-related lawsuits have been filed against the
Federal Government just during the Obama administration. This guidance
will encourage litigious groups, who already view NEPA as a means to
slow or shut down projects that they oppose politically or
ideologically.
Entities that have already spent significant resources on NEPA
processes to complete environmental impact statements will face greater
uncertainty as a result of this guidance. Exaggerated impacts for even
the smallest of future projects will likely result in these in the
pipeline projects being unjustly denied or they will become too costly
to complete.
In addition, this guidance inappropriately promotes a cost-benefit
analysis that lacks peer review, called the Social Cost of Carbon. This
is one of the Administration's least transparent environmental
decisions, developed behind closed doors by the Office of Management
and Budget and other unelected Federal officials in 2009.
Perhaps most concerning is the apparent lack of concern or
awareness of the limits of Executive authority and the appropriate role
of Congress. Executive over-reach has become perhaps the hallmark of
this Administration and will unfortunately be part of its legacy. From
executive amnesty, to unilateral changes to Obamacare, and now climate
change, this Administration's ``the-ends-justifies-the-means'' attitude
has been apparent from the beginning; if it can't get something through
Congress, then it find other means of accomplishing its goal,
stretching the limits of the Constitution.
A few years ago, after the President failed to get his cap-and-
trade and climate change agenda through Congress--a Congress in which
the Democrats held the majority, by the way--he famously declared that
using Congress ``was just one way of skinning the cat, [but] it was not
the only way.'' This CEQ draft guidance is apparently that ``other
way.''
That is not how our system of government is supposed to work. If a
project would have ``no significant impact'' on global carbon emissions
or the global climate, then that project's impact on the human
environment is zero. Full stop. End of story. That is the end of the
assessment required by NEPA. CEQ does not get to alter NEPA just to get
the results it wants. That approach to interpreting laws is dangerous
and is the exact abuse of power our Constitution was created to
prevent.
NEPA--enacted in 1970--needs to be reviewed, updated and improved
to protect the environment as originally intended. However, this is
Congress' responsibility, through oversight and passing laws--NOT the
executive branch's. As Congress begins this needed look at NEPA, CEQ
must be content with the law as it is written.
______
The Chairman. With that, I will yield back the remainder of
my time, and turn to the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me welcome
our witness. Thank you very much.
It is disappointing that we are not doing our jobs and
having hearings on the impacts of climate change on our Nation.
That is what we should be doing. Instead, we are going to
dissect, for the second time in this Congress, the
Administration's attempt to merely understand the carbon impact
of our Federal decisions.
The arguments for doing so are simple and strong: various
agencies and dozens of lawsuits have concluded that analyses
done under NEPA, an environmental law, should consider the
mother of all environmental issues, climate change. But
different courts are giving different agencies slightly
different mandates. And the agencies that are already doing it,
are not all doing it in the same way.
CEQ's guidance provides clarity, consistency, and
predictability across agencies for various industries and
stakeholders. By reducing litigation, it also reduces taxpayer
costs. I can usually rely on my friends on the other side of
the aisle to argue for these outcomes.
At the same time, the arguments against the guidance are
not particularly compelling. We will hear claims that the
guidance contains requirements for agencies instead of
recommendations, because agencies will follow guidance as if it
were law. But then we will hear that CEQ chose not to follow
the guidance of OMB about cost-benefit analysis.
Which is it? Is guidance always followed or not? We can't
have it both ways. And we will hear that individual projects
undertaken by the Federal Government are too small for us to be
able to prove that they contribute to climate change. This
shows a profound lack of understanding, or denial, about how
climate change works. These arguments help us understand what
this hearing is really about, it is about climate denial.
In our hearing on this guidance last year, a climate denier
was a Majority witness who garnered much of the time and
questions. In fact, the majority on this committee has
frequently given climate deniers legitimacy by inviting them to
testify.
And of course, there is the Science Committee Chairman's
holy war against anyone who would dare ask whether the biggest
oil company on the planet has broken the law in its quest to
distort, delay, or deny climate science.
We cannot afford the luxury of playing political games with
our climate. That time is up. Yesterday, in fact, 375 members
of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel
laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the
serious risks of climate change, and the irresponsibility of
political leaders who deny the risk.
The statement, signed by a set of scientists that includes
long-time Republican voters and that represents a broad
political spectrum, begins by saying, ``Human caused climate
change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a
physical reality.'' The letter continues that it is of great
concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated
U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. The consequences of
opting out of a global community would be severe and long
lasting for our planet's climate and for the international
credibility of the United States.
And I would ask unanimous consent to submit the letter in
its entirety for the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. So ordered.
[The letter submitted by Mr. Grijalva for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files and can be accessed
at http://responsiblescientists.org/.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. In May of this year, I held a
forum in which we heard directly from American citizens that
are already refugees in their own country because of climate
change. Deme Naquin, from the Isle de Jean Charles Band of
Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw Natives in southeast Louisiana
testified, ``Over the last 60 years, we have lost 98 percent of
our land due to coastal erosion, land subsidence, and powerful
storms enhanced by sea-level rise. We have lost 22,000 acres in
this time. Our island is disappearing fast.''
It is a classic case of environmental injustice because
Native American communities typically do the least among us to
contribute to climate change, but they bear the impacts first
and worst.
I would support a discussion about the best way to stop the
worst effects of climate change. I would welcome a debate about
the best way for us to shore up our resilience to the warming
that is already in the pipeline. But this hearing is about
whether we should close our eyes and hope that climate change
goes away. I promise it won't.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
It's disappointing that we aren't doing our jobs and having
hearings on the impacts of climate change on our Nation. Instead, we
are going to dissect, for the second time this Congress, the
Administration's attempt to merely understand the carbon impact of our
own Federal decisions.
The arguments for doing it are simple and strong.
Various agencies and dozens of lawsuits have concluded that
analyses done under NEPA--an environmental law--should consider the
mother of all environmental issues, climate change. But different
courts are giving different agencies slightly different mandates. And
the agencies that are already doing it, are not all doing it in the
same way.
CEQ's guidance provides clarity, consistency and predictability
across agencies for various industries and stakeholders. By reducing
litigation, it also reduces taxpayer costs. I can usually rely on my
friends on the other side to argue for these outcomes.
At the same time, the arguments against the guidance are not
particularly compelling.
We'll hear claims that the guidance contains requirements for the
agencies instead of recommendations because agencies follow guidance as
if it were law. But then we'll hear that CEQ chose not to follow the
guidance from OMB about cost-benefit analysis. Which is it? Is guidance
always followed or not? Can't have it both ways.
And we will hear that individual projects undertaken by the Federal
Government are too small for us to be able to prove they contribute to
climate change. That shows a profound lack of understanding--or
denial--about how climate change works.
Those arguments help us understand what this hearing is really
about--climate denial.
In our hearing on this guidance last year, a climate denier was a
majority witness who garnered much of the time and questions.
In fact, the Majority on this committee has frequently given
climate deniers legitimacy by inviting them to testify.
And of course there's the Science Committee Chairman's holy war
against anyone who would dare ask whether the biggest oil company on
the planet has broken the law in its quest to distort, delay, and deny
climate science.
We can't afford the luxury of playing political games with our
climate. Time is up.
In May of this year, I held a forum in which we heard directly from
American citizens that are already refugees in their own country
because of climate change.
Deme Naquin from the Isle de Jean Charles Band of the Biloxi
Chitimacha-Choctaw in Southeast Louisiana testified that ``Over the
last 60 years we have lost 98 percent of our land due to coastal
erosion, land subsidence, and powerful storms enhanced by sea-level
rise. We have lost over 22,000 acres in this time. Our island is
disappearing fast.''
It's a classic case of environmental injustice because Native
American communities typically do the least among us to contribute to
climate change, but they bear the impacts first and worst.
I would support a discussion about the best way to stop the worst
effects of climate change. I would welcome a debate about the best way
for us to shore up our resilience to the warming that is already in the
pipeline.
But this hearing is about whether we should close our eyes and hope
that climate change goes away. I promise, it won't.
______
Mr. Grijalva. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. It is good to see we are both on
the same page.
With that, we want to welcome our witness, Ms. Christy
Goldfuss, who is the Managing Director of the White House
Council on Environmental Quality. Thank you for being here
again. Thank you for talking about this voluntary guidance,
which everyone has to do. In fact, I think we are going to give
you that shirt that says, ``She Who Must Be Obeyed.'' And you
get 2 extra minutes if you understand the reference.
Ms. Goldfuss. Well, I really wish my children understood
what that meant.
The Chairman. OK. You don't get the extra 2 minutes.
Ms. Goldfuss. I won't get the extra 2 minutes; I won't need
it.
The Chairman. But I----
Ms. Goldfuss. Let me put it that way.
The Chairman. So, with that, thank you for being here. You
know the drill. You have 5 minutes for the opening statement,
you know the way the clock works ahead of you. I would like to
recognize you right now for anything you wish to say orally.
Ms. Goldfuss. Great, thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTY GOLDFUSS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ms. Goldfuss. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Ranking
Member Grijalva, and members of the committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Council on Environmental Quality's final guidance on
considering greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate
change in National Environmental Policy Act reviews. This final
guidance represents the culmination of more than 6 years of
work by CEQ with Federal agencies and two rounds of public
comments from a wide variety of stakeholders. I appreciate the
committee's continued interest in this issue, and for inviting
me back to testify a second time, now that this guidance is
final.
Across the globe, we are already seeing increasingly the
impacts of extreme weather, longer wildfire seasons, rising sea
levels, and other impacts of climate change. Climate change is
real, and we are experiencing these impacts now: 2015 was the
hottest year on record, and last month was the 16th consecutive
month of record-breaking heat.
And taxpayer dollars are at stake, as well. Over the past
decade, the Federal Government alone has spent more than $357
billion in direct costs due to extreme weather and wildfires.
Now we are even looking at spending taxpayer dollars to help
relocate entire communities at risk in Louisiana, Washington,
and also Alaska. That is why, under President Obama's
leadership, the Administration has taken more action to address
climate change and build a clean-energy economy than ever
before. By counseling Federal agencies on how to consider
climate change in their NEPA reviews, our final guidance builds
on the Administration's efforts to address climate change and
build a more resilient future.
Under NEPA, Federal agencies are required to consider and
disclose the potential effects of their actions on the
environment. Over the years, Federal agencies have looked to
CEQ for how best to analyze those actions, and consider ways in
which climate change is affecting Federal projects.
Additionally, for more than two decades, courts have been
asked to determine if Federal agencies must consider the
greenhouse gas emission effects of major Federal actions in
their NEPA documents. In fact, since 1990, there have been more
than 90 NEPA cases, involving more than 25 Federal agencies, in
which plaintiffs have raised climate change issues.
The final CEQ guidance is built on agencies' experience,
and crafted to provide a consistent approach across the Federal
Government, while also allowing the flexibility to accommodate
diverse circumstances and agencies' expert judgment. The goal
is to ensure that NEPA analysis provides the public and Federal
agencies with a clear picture of how the Federal Government
impacts climate change.
In order to measure impacts on climate change, the guidance
asks that agencies quantify greenhouse gas emissions from
proposed agencies actions as part of their NEPA analyses. It
also counsels agencies to consider alternatives that are more
resilient to the effects of a changing climate, like ensuring a
bridge is rebuilt to account for sea-level rise.
Building on the 2010 and 2014 draft guidance documents, our
final guidance reflects extensive consideration of comments and
feedback received from hundreds of individuals, organizations,
and Members of Congress, including this very committee.
Notably, the final guidance does not include a reference point
for when agencies would have to quantify projected greenhouse
gas emissions impacts. Instead, the guidance asks that agencies
quantify projected emissions when the necessary tools,
methodologies, and data inputs are available, an issue this
committee raised with us.
With the finalization of this guidance, the Administration
is taking another big step in the effort to consider how
Federal actions will impact climate change, and identify
opportunities to build climate resilience, saving taxpayer
dollars in the long run. As President Obama has said many
times, climate change is the greatest threat facing our planet,
and it is critical that we all act now.
I firmly believe that this guidance will help agencies
build more resilient projects and communities, and make more
transparent decisions, which in turn improve environmental and
community outcomes.
With that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today, and I look forward to answering all
of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goldfuss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, Council on
Environmental Quality
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Council on Environmental Quality's Final Guidance on
Considering Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change
in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reviews. This final
guidance represents the culmination of over 6 years of work by CEQ with
Federal agencies and two rounds of public comments from a wide variety
of stakeholders. CEQ's message is clear: NEPA implementation should be
consistent with the law, policy, and science that is leading efforts
here and around the world to consider the impacts associated with
climate change and Federal actions. I appreciated the committee's
interest in this issue when I testified in front of this committee on
May 13, 2015 and thank you for inviting me back to discuss the final
guidance.
CEQ issued its final guidance under the authority of NEPA, which is
the Nation's basic environmental charter and CEQ's organic act. Section
102 of NEPA contains action-forcing requirements for Federal agencies
to consider and publicly disclose the potential environmental effects
of their proposed actions on the human environment. Simply put, the
NEPA review process directs agencies to ``look before they leap'' to
ensure that Federal decisionmakers take into account the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts of their actions on the natural and
physical environment.
The consideration of the impacts of human activities on our climate
has been identified as a CEQ concern since 1970, when it issued its
first annual report on the state of the environment.\1\ As the science
of climate change developed over time, CEQ was called upon to provide
guidance on the application of this information in the context of NEPA
reviews. CEQ developed draft guidance for interagency review in 1989
and in 1997 but it never finalized these guidance. This did not impede
agencies from considering climate change in their NEPA reviews. For
example, as early as 1989 Federal agencies like the Department of
Energy were leading the way with the incorporation of climate change
considerations into their environmental impact statements. Federal
courts have also gotten involved over the years by requiring Federal
agencies to consider the greenhouse gas emission effects in NEPA
analyses of major Federal actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CEQ, First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental
Quality, pp. 93-104 (Aug. 3, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, taking into account climate change in environmental impact
assessment processes has become a standard practice that has been
adopted by Federal agencies, state agencies, international bodies, and
public and private organizations around the world. The final CEQ
guidance is built on this record of experience to help ensure that NEPA
analysis provides the public and Federal agencies with a clear picture
of how many types of Federal actions can implicate climate change
issues and identify opportunities to build climate resilience. The
guidance encourages consistency across Federal agencies in how they
take these considerations into account in the NEPA process. Agencies
must consider and disclose the impacts of their actions with respect to
climate change, but it does not require them to choose any specific
outcome.
road leading to the final guidance
NEPA implementation is based on the idea that Federal agencies
should consider and disclose the reasonably foreseeable effects of
their proposed actions on the human environment. For a number of years,
Federal agencies struggled with how they should analyze actions that
contribute to climate change and how to best consider the myriad of
ways in which climate change is affecting Federal agency actions.
In many cases, Federal actions have the potential to contribute to
climate change by causing greenhouse gas emissions. Federal agency
actions may also affect ecosystems and communities that are
particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. Additionally,
Federal agency actions may themselves be affected by many of the
impacts of a changing climate, such as rising sea levels, extreme
weather, drought, and wildfires, and NEPA assists in considering a
range of alternatives to address those impacts.
Not surprisingly, Federal courts have found that evaluating the
impacts of Federal actions on climate change should be part of
agencies' NEPA reviews. Litigation over various NEPA documents creates
the potential for different standards across the Nation on the
appropriate scope and extent of this analysis. These analytical
challenges, and their legal implications, led agencies to request CEQ
provide guidance and technical assistance on this topic. CEQ also
received a formal petition from three non-governmental organizations
under the Administrative Procedure Act to amend its regulations to
address climate change in NEPA reviews.
In light of the agencies need for formal guidance, CEQ circulated
drafts of guidance for interagency comment beginning in 1989 and issued
initial Draft Guidance for public comment in February 2010. CEQ sought
public comments on the 2010 Draft Guidance generally and included a
number of questions regarding the assessment of climate change effects
for land and resource management actions specifically. CEQ received
more than 100 public comments and other feedback from private citizens,
corporations, environmental organizations, trade associations, and
Federal and state agencies. During the time CEQ was considering these
comments and was engaging with Federal agencies on changes to the
guidance, it received formal recommendations to finalize the guidance.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), for example,
recommended CEQ finalize the guidance to assist agencies in determining
how to consider the effects of climate change in the NEPA process.\2\
In addition, the State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience recommended to the President that the
guidance be finalized.\3\ Following years of engagement CEQ released a
Revised Draft Guidance in December 2014 that reflected consideration of
comments and input received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, Climate Change:
Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local
Infrastructure Decision Makers, p. 87, GAO-13-242 (April 2013)
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653741.pdf.
\3\ Recommendations of the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task
Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, p. 20, Recommendation 2.7
(November 2014) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/docs/task_force_report_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEQ made the 2014 Revised Draft Guidance available for public
review and comment for a total of 90 days (60-day comment period and a
30-day extension). We received over 100 substantive comments from a
wide range of stakeholders including from this committee, individual
Members of Congress, tribes, corporations, environmental organizations,
trade associations, academics, private citizens, and Federal, state,
and local government agencies.
The final guidance adopted on August 1, 2016 reflects CEQ's
consideration of comments and feedback. Throughout this process, CEQ
consulted with Federal agencies and other stakeholders on the most
helpful and appropriate ways to provide all Federal agencies with
clarity on how they should consider the potential impacts of their
actions on climate change in their NEPA reviews.
content of the final guidance
The final CEQ guidance provides Federal agencies with a CEQ-
endorsed framework they can rely on, providing a more predictable and
consistent approach when considering climate impacts as part of NEPA
alternatives, effects, and public input. This increased predictability
and consistency will allow decisionmakers and the public to better
understand the relevant climate impacts of all proposed Federal
actions, and in turn, assist agencies in comparing alternatives and
considering measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change and
identify opportunities to build climate resilience. It will also allow
agencies to manage public resources more efficiently by focusing their
attention on climate change issues when and where they matter.
The final guidance explains the application of NEPA principles and
practices to the analysis of GHG emissions and climate change, and:
Recommends that agencies quantify a proposed agency
action's projected direct and indirect GHG emissions,
taking into account available data and GHG quantification
tools that are suitable for the proposed agency action;
Recommends that agencies use projected GHG emissions (to
include, where applicable, carbon sequestration
implications associated with the proposed agency action) as
a proxy for assessing potential climate change effects when
preparing a NEPA analysis for a proposed agency action;
Recommends that where agencies do not quantify a proposed
agency action's projected GHG emissions because tools,
methodologies, or data inputs are not reasonably available
to support calculations for a quantitative analysis,
agencies include a qualitative analysis in the NEPA
document and explain the basis for determining that
quantification is not reasonably available;
Discusses methods to appropriately analyze reasonably
foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of
reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions and climate effects;
Guides the consideration of reasonable alternatives and
recommends agencies consider the short- and long-term
effects and benefits in the alternatives and mitigation
analysis;
Advises agencies to use available information when
assessing the potential future state of the affected
environment in a NEPA analysis, instead of undertaking new
research that is unnecessary, and provides examples of
existing sources of scientific information;
Counsels agencies to use the information developed during
the NEPA review to consider alternatives that would make
the actions and affected communities more resilient to the
effects of a changing climate;
Outlines special considerations for agencies analyzing
biogenic carbon dioxide sources and carbon stocks
associated with land and resource management actions under
NEPA;
Recommends that agencies select the appropriate level of
NEPA review to assess the broad-scale effects of GHG
emissions and climate change, either to inform programmatic
(e.g., landscape-scale) decisions, or at both the
programmatic and tiered project- or site-specific level,
and to set forth a reasoned explanation for the agency's
approach; and
Counsels agencies that the ``rule of reason'' inherent in
NEPA and the CEQ Regulations allows agencies to determine,
based on their expertise and experience, how to consider an
environmental effect and prepare an analysis based on the
available information.
Agencies have substantial discretion on how to implement to their
programs and actions. Many are already developing strategies and their
own guidance to apply the general CEQ guidance to their particular
actions, programs, and decisions. Guidance does not impose new
requirements--this is not a regulation. Nothing in the guidance
requires agencies to make a specific decision. It simply guides
agencies on how they can take climate change impacts into
consideration, which strengthens those decisions scientifically,
legally, and as a matter of informed public policy.
incorporating public comment and agency feedback in the final guidance
After receiving public comments and agency feedback on the 2014
Draft Guidance, CEQ made a number of changes to the final guidance to
address concerns raised. First, CEQ eliminated the concept of a
reference point. In both the 2010 and 2014 drafts, CEQ had proposed a
25,000 metric ton CO2-equivalent reference point to assist
agencies in identifying when quantification of greenhouse gas emissions
would be appropriate, something in which this committee was
specifically interested. However, after receiving feedback from Federal
agencies and other stakeholders, CEQ found that many tools are
available to estimate GHG emissions and there was no need to establish
a reference point for the decision whether to quantify emissions. This
led CEQ to remove the reference point and instead to encourage agencies
to quantify and disclose GHG emissions whenever the necessary tools,
methodologies, and data inputs are reasonably available. If appropriate
quantitative calculators or data inputs are not available, a
qualitative analysis is recommended. To assist agencies in this area,
CEQ updated its information on existing GHG accounting tools that
Federal agencies have developed and used, and that may be appropriate
for GHG emission quantification in particular NEPA analyses. An updated
list of these GHG accounting tools was published simultaneously with
the Final Guidance \4\ and will be further updated from time to time as
new tools are identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The list of GHG accounting tools currently can be accessed at:
https://ceq.doe.gov/current_developments/ghg-accounting-tools.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the removal of this reference point, CEQ made
changes throughout the guidance to remind agencies that they should
rely on the NEPA concepts of ``proportionality'' and the ``rule of
reason'' to establish when and how to take climate change into account.
The Final Guidance encourages agencies to draw on their experience and
expertise to determine the appropriate level and extent of quantitative
or qualitative analysis required to comply with NEPA. This would help
agencies avoid develop in-depth analysis when they are unnecessary.
Another change CEQ made as a result of the input received is the
removal of the terms ``upstream'' and ``downstream'' in reference to
GHG emissions. Comments received expressed confusion since these were
not terms typically used in the NEPA process. CEQ removed these terms
and focused on the more familiar NEPA regulatory terms of ``direct,''
``indirect,'' and ``cumulative effects.''
Finally, the guidance provides the agencies with more details on
what to consider when determining whether to apply the guidance to
ongoing NEPA reviews. In particular the guidance indicates that in
making these decisions the agencies should factor whether following the
guidance would inform the consideration of differences between
alternatives or address comments raised through the public comment
process. Agencies should also consider whether the additional time and
resources needed would be proportionate to the value of the information
included.
implementation of the final guidance
This guidance is part of an ongoing effort to adapt NEPA
implementation and help agencies make informed and transparent
decisions about the impacts of climate change associated with their
actions. The Final Guidance makes recommendations that will benefit all
agencies and build off of the work agencies are already doing to engage
in climate change-related analyses for their actions.
Since the release of the Final Guidance, CEQ has received positive
feedback from agencies and is providing technical assistance to those
agencies interested in developing their own agency-specific guidance
materials that take into account their unique programs and missions.
CEQ recommends that agencies review their NEPA procedures and propose
any updates they deem necessary or appropriate to facilitate their
consideration of GHG emissions and climate change. This guidance will
inform CEQ's review of agency proposals for revising their NEPA
procedures. The Final Guidance and CEQ's review of agency NEPA
procedures will be important tools for achieving consistency across
Federal agencies on how climate change is considered in NEPA reviews.
conclusion
This final guidance is another big step in this Administration's
effort to consider how Federal actions will impact climate change and
to identify opportunities to build climate resiliency into projects
with a Federal nexus.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
committee, I firmly believe that this guidance will help agencies build
more resilient projects and communities, and make more transparent
decisions, which in turn improve environmental and community outcomes.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and look
forward to answering your questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Christy. And, obviously, anything
else you have written will be part of the record.
We will now turn to questions from Members. Remember that
Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-minute limit on all questions and
answers. I will try and do that as quickly as I can. And for
me, I am going to yield my time to Mr. Westerman to start the
questioning.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Goldfuss, for being here. You have
referenced a couple of times in your testimony about increased
wildfires and climate change. Do you think there is anything
else contributing to the increased wildfires that we are seeing
today?
Ms. Goldfuss. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Westerman. Do you think there is anything other than
climate change contributing to the increased wildfires that we
see today? You have referenced that a couple of times.
Ms. Goldfuss. There are many factors that contribute to
each individual fire, yes.
Mr. Westerman. And what would those be?
Ms. Goldfuss. They can be drought, which is exacerbated by
climate change. They can be lightning strikes, human activity,
any number of things.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, lightning strikes is a cause, human
activity is a cause. What about management of the forest? Can
that contribute to wildfires?
Ms. Goldfuss. Certainly management of the forest is very
important in how we manage for wildfire.
Mr. Westerman. In what ways?
Ms. Goldfuss. In what way is management of the forest
important to how we manage for wildfire?
Mr. Westerman. Right.
Ms. Goldfuss. Well, I don't want to speak to all the Forest
Service's management approaches here, but there are many
different ways that----
Mr. Westerman. How about their lack of management
approaches? Do you think there is any correlation between
wildfires on managed land and public land that is not managed?
Ms. Goldfuss. We certainly have had much success, and our
colleagues at the Forest Service are the experts in this area,
in managed areas where we see areas that are more resistant to
wildfire, yes.
Mr. Westerman. And what areas would those be?
Ms. Goldfuss. I was actually just near one recently with
the President in Tahoe. There are many stories about fire in
that region, where we have seen the difference between managed
lands and not-managed lands.
Mr. Westerman. So the managed lands have less fire, they
are more resilient to fire than the unmanaged lands?
Ms. Goldfuss. It is not less fire, just the fire
characteristics are different in the managed lands than----
Mr. Westerman. What is your training? What is your
background?
Ms. Goldfuss. What is my background?
Mr. Westerman. Right.
Ms. Goldfuss. Prior to this job I worked at the National
Park Service. And then, prior to that, I was here at the
committee. And then, prior to that, I worked at a think tank.
Mr. Westerman. And what is your educational background?
Ms. Goldfuss. I graduated from Brown University and I
studied political science.
Mr. Westerman. So you studied political science, which
really is not a science at all, but you are making scientific
judgments on what causes wildfires. You come in and say that it
is climate change that causes it, that you don't really
understand about forest management, and the Administration has
pushed back on forest management. The fact that we have seen
wildfires increase as management goes down, that is a pretty
good scientific indicator that management and controlling
wildfires is important.
When you talk about the impact of this guidance--and I am
concerned about what it will have on a project that may have,
prior to this guidance, simply conducted an environmental
assessment and then issued a finding of no significant impact.
Is the draft guidance intended to be used for environmental
assessments?
Ms. Goldfuss. The draft guidance applies to both
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.
We say clearly in the guidance that any decision that has been
previously made, the agencies are not recommended to go back
and review that.
Mr. Westerman. Is it possible that a project, pre-final
guidance, would have had no significant impact on the
environment, but now, due to the final guidance, it would be
forced to conduct an EIS or implement mitigation measures?
Ms. Goldfuss. If there has already been a finding of no
significant impact, it would not need to go back and be
reviewed.
Mr. Westerman. So, if a project has a relatively small
amount of emissions, say 25,000 tons, and let's say the project
has no other significant impacts, so the finding of no
significant impact, could a judge place an injunction on the
project until they mitigated their emissions, saying that they
should have conducted an environmental impact statement?
Ms. Goldfuss. Is this a specific case to which you are
referencing?
Mr. Westerman. Well, it is just in general what could
happen with this guidance.
Ms. Goldfuss. Well, I cannot respond to what would happen
if a judge said that the agency had to go back and review. I
can tell you what happens now, going forward.
Mr. Westerman. So what happens now?
Ms. Goldfuss. Now, going forward, the guidance would
recommend that agencies look at climate change in their NEPA
reviews. And they do that through quantifying their greenhouse
gas emissions.
Mr. Westerman. So what is the difference between 10,000
tons and 100,000 tons or 500,000 tons in the context of global
emissions? Is there any difference?
Ms. Goldfuss. I think what you are speaking to is really
the nature of climate change, which is that there are millions
of different actions that contribute to this overall threat
that we see to the planet. So to say that one----
Mr. Westerman. What about the 100 million tons of carbon
that went up in forest fires last year because we failed to
manage our forest? Does that contribute to climate change?
Ms. Goldfuss. As you would see in the guidance, we account
for both ways to value the carbon stock nature of the
environment, or the natural resources, and also the carbon
emissions.
The Chairman. Thank you. Be careful, I am a poli-sci
graduate, too.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And you are right, it qualifies me to sell
shoes at Penney's.
Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Director Goldfuss, thank you for being here again. As a
history major----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That is one step below poli-sci, right?
Ms. Goldfuss. Are we going to get everyone's major here?
Mr. Grijalva. Perhaps a step below poli-sci, in some
people's estimation. But as a history major, I mean, there is a
glaring lesson that we were taught about it repeating itself.
And also to be able to understand what was and what is now. So,
I think there is some application to the discussion today.
Let me ask you. Do you and your colleagues at CEQ believe
the earth's climate is changing?
Ms. Goldfuss. We certainly do.
Mr. Grijalva. Do you and your colleagues believe that
burning fossil fuels and the resulting release of greenhouse
gases into our atmosphere contributes to climate change?
Ms. Goldfuss. We certainly do, and we are not alone.
Mr. Grijalva. So, the bottom-line question is, is climate
change real?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes, climate change is real, and we are
experiencing the impacts and paying for them right now.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. And why should we care, I think is kind
of the part of the question today. It appears to me that our
changing climate is playing a role in the prolonged and more
severe drought, longer and more intense fire seasons, more
frequent and dangerous weather events, accelerated coastal
erosion, habitat loss, and on and on and on. Do you share the
conviction that climate change is having serious detrimental
impacts on our environment? And could you discuss some
examples?
Ms. Goldfuss. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Grijalva. The
impacts that we are experiencing are devastating for, say, the
community of Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana, where we are
looking at spending taxpayer dollars for moving the entire
community to a new location because their island will be under
water in the coming decades.
Also, Kotzebue, in Alaska, where the entire community has
just voted to relocate from where they have lived, because of
the impact from climate change. And then there are other
communities elsewhere in Washington State that are having a
similar discussion. These are the impacts that we see in the
United States.
If you look at globally, you talk to the Department of
Defense or any other colleagues about the impacts of what we
are seeing globally, it is devastating. So to say that one
impact or one decision is not relevant to the overall problem
we are facing does not recognize that, really, we are all in
this together and have a responsibility to address this problem
at every point we can.
Mr. Grijalva. For the benefit of all of us I want to just
read the stated purpose of NEPA. The laws, that CEQ was created
to help implement, state--``To declare a national policy which
will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, and
stimulate the health and welfare of man.''
If climate change is indeed real, and I believe it is, as
you do, and if the impacts of climate change are those we just
discussed, would you say we are currently living up to the
goals set by Congress in NEPA, and that we should live in a
productive and enjoyable harmony with our environment? Are we
there yet?
Ms. Goldfuss. We are not there yet. I think it is a
constant struggle of always balancing the needs of our economy
and the environment. But what we have seen over time is that we
can have both. Over the last 15 years we have cut our carbon
emissions by 6 percent, while the GDP has grown 11 percent. We
can do both of these things. The guidance is a step in the
right direction to giving agencies the space to give us the
information so we can make smart decisions.
Mr. Grijalva. Director, my question is not whether or not
CEQ should be issuing this guidance. My question is why it has
taken CEQ this long to make this obvious and overdue step.
Can CEQ, the Interior Department, the Agriculture
Department, or any aspect of our Federal Government possibly
claim to be living up to the goals set forth in NEPA if we
continue to deny climate science and ignore climate change in
our decisionmaking?
Ms. Goldfuss. In 2010 and 2014, we had many conversations
and heard from stakeholders. It took us this 6-year period of
time, and even back farther than that if you look at the
records for CEQ, discussing how climate change should be
incorporated into NEPA reviews to get it right.
I also believe that the tools available to agencies to
quantify greenhouse gas emissions have evolved and are really
state-of-the-art at this time. So they have the capacity to do
it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. You should have taken another 2
years.
Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Goldfuss, as one political science major to another----
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. You are addressing something that you are
obviously very seriously concerned about.
I noted that on November 2 the Washington Post carried this
report, ``The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing
scarcer, and in some places, the seals are finding the water
too hot,'' according to a report to the Commerce Department
yesterday. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers
all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth
of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great
masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known
glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no
whitefish are found in the Eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of
herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far
north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt,
the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Is this the crisis you are referring to?
Ms. Goldfuss. It is a crisis we are trying to address.
Mr. McClintock. And how long has this been reaching a
critical condition?
Ms. Goldfuss. I am not sure how you would define a critical
condition. I think we are seeing the impacts now, and this
guidance is a tool that agencies will be able to use to provide
us information on how----
Mr. McClintock. Specifically to address the catastrophic
warming that this report refers to.
Ms. Goldfuss. I am not familiar with that specific report.
What I can tell you----
Mr. McClintock. Perhaps the reason is because it was
November 2, 1922 that the Washington Post carried this article.
I think we can agree that global warming has been going on for
a long time. It has been going on and off since the last Ice
Age.
In fact, I attended the President's address at Yosemite
this past year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in
Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me that, had he
given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before, he
would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice.
Doesn't that predate the invention of the SUV?
Ms. Goldfuss. What I can speak to are the facts that
scientists are pointing to now. As has been rightly pointed
out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I----
Mr. McClintock. And neither am I, but I do know history.
And our pre-history tells us that climate is always changing.
We know that during the Jurassic Period, about 150 million
years ago, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were five times
higher than they are today. And it was the planet's most
prolific period for new species. Do you deny this science?
Ms. Goldfuss. What I know is that----
Mr. McClintock. Do you deny this--yes or no?
Ms. Goldfuss. Well, 15 of the 16 hottest years on record
have happened since 2000.
Mr. McClintock. Well, when you say on----
Ms. Goldfuss. We have now had 16 months----
Mr. McClintock. Pardon me, my time.
Ms. Goldfuss [continuing]. Of global averages----
Mr. McClintock. Well, I am glad you brought that up,
because we know, in recorded history, that during the Roman
warm period, from about 250 to 400 AD, much of Rome's grain
supply was grown on what are now the deserts of North Africa.
We know that during the Medieval Warm Period, from the 10th
through the 13th centuries, wine grapes were grown in Northern
Britain, and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving
agricultural economy. And we also know that during the little
ice age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every
winter, and advancing ice destroyed many towns in Europe.
So, to change this, I am just wondering what it is that you
estimate this to cost.
Ms. Goldfuss. Congressman, what I know is the changes that
we are experiencing now, the costs associated with that----
Mr. McClintock. But these are changes that----
Ms. Goldfuss [continuing]. And the responsibility that we
have to address them if we----
Mr. McClintock. These are changes that we have noted
throughout the recorded history of civilization, and that
science tells us were occurring----
Ms. Goldfuss [continuing]. Are not telling us that these
are the same changes.
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. Long before the emergence of
human life on this planet.
So now, let me ask you. What is this guidance going to
cost?
Ms. Goldfuss. This guidance is not a regulation. It is not
legally enforceable. And in fact, what it does is help
agencies----
Mr. McClintock. If it is followed to the letter, how much
is it going to cost?
Ms. Goldfuss. I don't have that figure for you, because it
is not a regulation. It is not required to be followed by
agencies----
Mr. McClintock. I suspect because the price is absolutely
astronomical. And if you dared to be candid with this committee
or the American people, you would have a revolt on your hands.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Mrs. Dingell, you were here even before
anyone else was, so you get to go next, according to Mr.
Grijalva, and everyone else was tardy. So you are very close to
detention right now. Mrs. Dingell, you are recognized.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a political
scientist, I am not a historian, I am just someone who loves
our country and loves America. And I don't like it when I see
us all fighting like this.
And I will tell you the Pope, though I am a Catholic, has
told me to pay attention to some of this. But I think we have a
lot of misinformation out here.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and
Director, for coming today--I am sure this is more fun than
going to the dentist, maybe.
For decades, the National Environmental Policy Act has
improved our environment and fostered fairness in our
communities by ensuring that the government remains accountable
to the people. And we all agree the government needs to remain
accountable to the people.
The NEPA process requires Federal agencies to review their
proposed actions in light of their potential impacts on the
human environment, the places where we all live, work, and
play. I want to commend CEQ for issuing this historic and
significant guidance for how agencies should consider emissions
during the NEPA review process. But I think, as we are seeing
here today, there is a lot of misinformation about what the
guidance really means. And I want to clarify those
misconceptions, so we are all on the same page.
Director Goldfuss, will agencies be required to prepare
environmental impact statements for every proposed action that
emits GHGs?
Ms. Goldfuss. No, not at all.
Mrs. Dingell. Will this guidance require agencies to
prepare more EISs instead of EAs?
Ms. Goldfuss. No, and we specifically say in the guidance
that it is unlikely that GHG emissions would ever change the
type of environmental analysis an agency would conduct.
Mrs. Dingell. Opponents claim that this guidance is
burdensome and costly. How is this guidance consistent with the
President's stated goal of streamlining the permitting process,
which is something I think we agree with on both sides? How
does this actually accomplish it, not make it more complicated?
Ms. Goldfuss. We certainly agree, as well. And as someone
who has worked in an agency, I can tell you nothing delays
things more than uncertainty. So, with 90 cases in the courts,
25 different agencies trying to figure out how to address the
issue of climate change, this guidance answers that question,
says that we recommend they account for greenhouse gas
emissions, and gives them tools to do so, which allows them to
move beyond the debate and do the analysis.
Mrs. Dingell. Why does CEQ recommend agencies use projected
emissions as a proxy for climate effects?
Ms. Goldfuss. It is another way of answering that question,
and we know that we have the tools and the data available to do
that. When there aren't tools or data available, the agencies
can simply state that and move on. But this is the best way
that we have and, really, the best proxy for climate change
impacts.
Mrs. Dingell. I want to thank the Director for coming today
and answering these questions. I think it is clear that this
guidance will give more certainty to project sponsors and set
the rules for the roads, for how each agency should account for
these impacts. And I think it would hopefully reduce the time
that goes into much of this because of it.
I want to thank the Director and CEQ for the good work on
this important issue, and yield back the balance of my time,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a holder of a
degree in agriculture, bachelor of science, I am glad to hear
that we are concerned about the production of CO2.
All the plants I have ever grown love CO2.
What we are talking about here with the proposed guidance,
it suggests that an agency must quantify greenhouse gas across
all actions connected to a Federal action. So I am wondering
how this would fit with the limits of an agency's authority
outside of a proposed action. Would it require an agency to be
speculative in what it does? How are we going to quantify these
things?
Because the scope of an individual project--well, let me
narrow it down. How does the CEQ intend to move forward to
ensure that the guidance does not become an impediment when
this Administration has professed to be supportive of natural
gas and the infrastructure? Natural gas is a very clean-burning
fuel, very plentiful, very low cost, one of our best things we
have, going forward, to provide a reliable fuel source for
heating, what have you.
How will this guidance not become an impediment to the gas
utility projects, and instead further, the Administration's
goals of improving infrastructure permitting; how is this
actually going to improve that process? How are we going to
streamline and speed up the process of getting permits when we
have additional layers that the CEQ is going to require all the
agencies that have a piece of the action to do?
Ms. Goldfuss. Just to step back a moment, the guidance fits
within the regulatory framework of NEPA, which asks agencies to
look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of their
actions. This guidance does not require agencies to do anything
different than what those regulations already lay out.
Instead, it says when it comes to the question of climate
change, here is the path forward. We would recommend that you
quantify your greenhouse gas emissions, and here are some tools
that you could use to do that. If the tools and methodologies
are not available--and I can say in the agriculture space, USDA
has several that are quite helpful--agencies can simply state
that the tools and data are not available, and give us a
qualitative assessment of what the impacts would be.
Mr. LaMalfa. If they will pull back from the requirement?
If the data is not available? Or will they go forward with a
speculative one?
Ms. Goldfuss. Once again, this is guidance, so it is not
requirement, and it is not legally binding.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So agencies can completely ignore this if
they wish.
Ms. Goldfuss. They can.
Mr. LaMalfa. That has not been the attitude.
There is a tool called the social cost of carbon that is
allowed within the guidance that we think would be very
incompatible with the Office of Management and Budget
requirements that there be a guide for agencies conducting
cost-benefit analyses.
Mr. McClintock alluded to--how much will be done to look at
the cost-benefit analysis of these actions? Because no doubt
there will be additional cost to those getting permits and
ongoing operations.
Ms. Goldfuss. NEPA is a regulation that requires Federal
agencies to look at their environmental impacts. It does not
require cost-benefit analysis. So, social cost of carbon is a
regulatory tool. It is not in any way required by this
guidance, which still is about environmental analysis, is not a
regulation, and does not require cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. LaMalfa. But the SCC does conflict with the Office of
Management and Budget guidance for requirement for agencies
when using cost-benefit analysis. Does that mean cost benefit
will be ignored?
Ms. Goldfuss. My colleague, Howard Shelanski from OIRA, is
talking about good guidance right now somewhere else on the
Hill. But social cost of carbon, once again, is a regulatory
tool. It is about cost-benefit analysis. NEPA is specifically
not about cost-benefit analysis. It is about environmental
review.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, we can assume that cost-benefit analysis
will not be part of the thinking on the implementation of the
guidance?
Ms. Goldfuss. It is up to each agency to use the tools that
they believe will give them the best information available.
Mr. LaMalfa. They have been ignoring that tool for a long
time.
Ms. Goldfuss. If they decided to use the cost-benefit
analysis of social cost of carbon, that is up to them.
Mr. LaMalfa. How do you explain the fluctuations in
CO2 levels pre-Industrial Revolution, and the--sure,
there is something called climate change. What this really
boils down to is what percentage of climate change or
CO2 is caused by mankind's actions. What percentage
of that CO2 production in the world today is caused
by what people do versus what the planet itself does?
Ms. Goldfuss. Congressman, we are going to have a
difference of opinion on this. Just as Mr. McClintock raised,
we know and what I know is what our scientists tell us, which
is that climate change is happening now.
Mr. LaMalfa. Your scientists.
Ms. Goldfuss. And that humans are contributing----
Mr. LaMalfa. Which group of scientists?
The Chairman. All right, let me----
Ms. Goldfuss. The vast majority.
The Chairman. Let me cut this off, we need to go on.
Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In defense of my own
political science degree, it gives you options. Law school----
The Chairman. Yes, but you became an attorney, so you went
downhill from there.
Mr. Huffman. You have law school or unemployment, so it
gives you options.
All right, Ms. Goldfuss, welcome. My friend from Arkansas
raises some interesting points. He is certainly right, that
these catastrophic wildfires that we are seeing more and more
in the West are not helping with climate change, they are
contributing to the problem.
But even though those questions were posed to you in an
adversarial manner, I think he is helping make the case for you
here, because, if he is correct--and he may be--that prudent
forest treatments can reduce the prevalence of those fires and,
therefore, the greenhouse gas-inducing emissions, then
considering those climate impacts or benefits as part of a NEPA
process ought to be a good thing in the NEPA review of those
plans. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Goldfuss. I would agree.
Mr. Huffman. OK. So I actually appreciate the point. I
think it underscores the fact that we need to look
comprehensively at all impacts, including climate impacts and
benefits to the various things that our Federal Government
does. That is what NEPA is all about.
Mr. McClintock certainly gave us some interesting rhetoric
on ice ages and climate change. Just when you thought a
previous ice age had extinguished all the dinosaurs, we heard
some pretty incredible climate denial just now. And that,
unfortunately, is the prevailing view in today's Republican
party. So you know this already, but I just want to welcome you
to this bubble of climate denial that you have walked into
today.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Chairman? Can we ask the Members to not be
so personal in their comments on using words like ``rhetoric''
when Members bring things up that might be scientifically
based, and just keep the tone to something less personal, sir?
The Chairman. Thank you. I didn't know who was talking
there, but I am sorry, there is a time you are supposed to ask
that question----
Mr. Huffman. Reclaiming my time?
The Chairman. Mr. Huffman, it is your time, please.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And I hope it will be adjusted to
reflect what was just lost.
The point, Ms. Goldfuss, is that this climate denial
philosophy you are hearing today is completely isolated from
the rest of the world. And you do know this, but it is worth
mentioning--every other conservative party in the world
acknowledges climate change, and supports action plans and
national and international negotiations and responses to
address it. That is why the conservative parties even who
believe in liberty and do not like regulation and do not like
lots of government in every other democracy in the world
acknowledge climate change and support international
agreements. They have signed on to the Paris Agreement, and yet
we are going the other direction with our Grand Old Party these
days, unfortunately, as you have heard today.
Just 8 years ago, the party platform acknowledged climate
change and called for a transition to clean energy. Fast
forward to 2016 and we have a nominee that calls it a hoax and
a platform that rejects not just the Paris Agreement, but its
goals, and declares that coal is clean energy.
So, we are sort of in a netherworld on this issue of
climate change here today, isolated literally from the rest of
the world. Even Vladimir Putin's Russia, even Castro's Cuba,
even China, they have all stepped forward because this climate
change science and the imperative of doing something about it
is so obvious to absolutely everyone in the world, including
conservatives, except for the folks that you are hearing from
here today and some of their colleagues.
So, I think that context is important. What you are doing
is absolutely essential. We should just make sure to remind
people why you are doing it. This is not part of some radical,
costly agenda. In fact, a lot of court cases have looked at
NEPA and concluded that you have to examine the impacts of
climate change. Is that correct?
Would you tell us about the state of those court decisions
that actually bind Federal agencies to go through a process
like this?
Ms. Goldfuss. That is right. By our research, there have
been 90 different cases that have raised climate change. The
trend out of those cases was for climate change to be
considered. Certainly there are cases that went the other way.
What that creates for the 25 agencies that are involved in
those various cases is confusion about what to do.
This guidance answers that question. It is our
recommendation that they quantify greenhouse gas emissions as a
way to account for their climate change impacts.
Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you. So, binding decisions of
Federal courts, overwhelming consensus of the world's
scientific community, and the view of the rest of the world,
you are doing the right thing, Ms. Goldfuss. Keep it up.
The Chairman. Let me ask all Members here, we have a long
time between now and the end of the year and a lame duck
session--just make sure you self-regulate what you say, and the
comments that you make vis-a-vis anybody else here in the room.
Mellow them out, unless we are talking about the
Administration. Then go after the jugular. Is that OK?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Goldfuss. Bring it.
The Chairman. OK?
Ms. Goldfuss. OK.
The Chairman. Mr. Newhouse, you are recognized.
Mr. Newhouse. Welcome, Ms. Goldfuss, I appreciate your
coming with us this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to
have this hearing, and just for full disclosure, I am an
agriculture-economics major. I hold a degree from Washington
State University.
But I guess it was inevitable that this would devolve into
an argument about climate change, unfortunately. I think the
focus of the hearing is the impacts of your final guidance on a
host of American economic energy-related industries and
activities. And so we will leave some of the previous comments
alone for now.
But certainly the climate is changing. I think everyone
recognizes that there is always change, and we are looking at
ways that we can solve what I think is not a mutually exclusive
equation, that we can have both economic development, as well
as being responsible. So, I appreciate you coming and answering
some questions about the final guidance itself.
So, a question. Just weeks after this final guidance was
issued, litigation was introduced against BLM's oil and gas
leasing program, actually citing the document. You have made
several statements today that this is not a regulation, it is
not legally enforceable, it is voluntary--so how can the
Administration maintain that it is merely a voluntary guide for
agencies, and should be exempt from the rulemaking process,
when it was immediately used as a tool for obstruction by
environmental organizations?
Ms. Goldfuss. Well, guidance has been part of policymaking
for a long time. And yes, NEPA guidance has withstood many
different court cases, and it comes out in different ways. But
it is still standing that this is not a regulation, it is not
legally binding. And although it may be referenced in courts,
it is up to agencies to make these decisions within the bounds
of their own statutes.
There is nothing here that says that you have to do this
guidance. In fact, there are many ways that agencies may
determine this is not appropriate, and our guidance would be
that they tell us why it is not appropriate. But the courts
will then determine whether or not those reviews were conducted
appropriately.
Mr. Newhouse. So, by setting the bar, at least if they do
not follow the guidance, because it is voluntary, they have to
justify beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law whether or
not they were right in ignoring the guidance.
Some people have raised concerns that this final guidance
does not provide for a fully inclusive cost-benefit analysis of
potential energy projects. For example, a newly built natural
gas pipeline or a hydro-electric dam could replace a less-
efficient source of energy, and a less reliable method of
transportation, thus having a positive and short-term as well
as long-term impact on the environment.
So, how does the suggested life cycle analysis of a long-
term infrastructure project take into account the positive
benefits of the project? If we are trying to address the
cumulative impacts on climate, why not factor in all benefits?
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
There are two parts there. The cost-benefit analysis is
specifically not part of NEPA reviews, as we discussed before,
but in terms of looking at the cumulative impacts you are
referencing, the regulations for NEPA, do lay out a framework
of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
Those cumulative impacts are bound by what can be
reasonably foreseen in the future to be those impacts. Then,
with regard to this guidance, the tools that we have made
available, and that the agencies are familiar with, they will
be able to use those to evaluate what the cumulative impacts of
the greenhouse gas emissions may be.
So, this is not about life-cycle analysis. That is
different than cumulative impacts that are bound by what is
reasonably foreseeable as our regulations already lay out.
Mr. Newhouse. OK, I think I understand. I appreciate that.
And in the short time remaining, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
my time.
The Chairman. Thank you. And, Dan, I apologize profusely.
Look, all I will tell you is that one time I wanted to talk to
Conway ahead of me. I leaned over and said, ``Larry, Larry,
Larry,'' and finally he turned back and said, ``My name is
Mike.'' So at least I did not go that far with you.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. I am not Larry, by the
way, so that is good.
The Chairman. But you are Mike.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I apologize. So we will turn to Mr. Johnson
next.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is some
analysis going on as to the effects of climate change on
memory.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. And perhaps that is part of the impact that
we could study.
The Chairman. You are not recognized.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal, it is your turn.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to
enter into the record a letter that I and 53 of my House
colleagues sent to seek support of the draft NEPA guidance last
year. I am pleased that we are holding this hearing on the two
topics that are very important to my constituents. That is both
NEPA and also climate change. So I offer that into the record.
The Chairman. So ordered.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The information follows:]
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Washington, DC 20515
April 27, 2015
Ms. Christy Goldfuss
Managing Director
Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place NW
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Ms. Goldfuss:
We write to express our strong support for the Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ) December 2014 draft guidance providing
federal agencies direction on when and how to consider the effects of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in their evaluation
of all proposed federal actions in accordance with the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Since the 1970's, NEPA has increased transparency and educated
federal agencies, Congress, and the public about the environmental
impacts of proposed federal actions. NEPA ensures that agencies analyze
the environmental effects of federal actions before decisions are made,
and provides decision makers with alternatives to mitigate these
effects.
Climate change is a fundamental environmental issue, and the
relation of federal actions to climate change falls squarely within
NEPA's congressional intent. The concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere has now surpassed 400 ppm. This is the highest atmospheric
CO2 concentration in at least 800,000 years. Among other
effects, increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing
global temperatures and sea levels to rise and are threatening many
aspects of our society--from fisheries to agriculture and from human
health to national security. In light of the broad environmental
consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, it is appropriate that
environmental evaluations required by NEPA should include consideration
of the ways in which federal actions can exacerbate or be impacted by
climate change.
Without imposing new requirements, the proposed guidance will help
federal agencies comply with NEPA requirements consistently across
agencies. It will not mandate a particular agency decision or compel
agencies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, even for projects with high
levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, it will provide for better
and more informed federal decisions regarding GHG emissions and the
effects of climate change consistent with existing NEPA principles.
The guidance highlights the importance of comparing and disclosing
potential GHG emissions from various project alternatives, and makes
clear that projects with GHG emissions below 25,000 metric tons annual
CO2-e do not always warrant quantitative climate change
analysis.
Furthermore, CEQ's NEPA guidance directs agencies to account for
actions that may occur as a predicate to the agency action as well as a
result of the agency action. We support CEQ's emphasis on the
importance of considering reasonable mitigation measures to lower GHG
emissions and appreciate the examples provided of mitigation options
related to greenhouse gases.
Finally, in order to put the GHG emissions into context, we propose
that CEQ direct agencies to consider calculating the climate change
costs of a project using the social cost of carbon. The social cost of
carbon is a scientifically-accepted method, developed by a dozen
federal agencies and offices, for determining the costs of carbon
pollution. The social cost of carbon provides a meaningful metric,
beyond tons of CO2 emissions, for understanding the impact
of GHG emissions in monetary terms.
We look forward to working with CEQ to further develop and
implement the NEPA guidance on when and how federal agencies should
consider the effects of GHG emissions and climate change in accordance
with their responsibilities under NEPA. As greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise, it is imperative
that federal agencies show leadership and transparency in accounting
for and reducing the emissions from their actions while also
considering the impacts that climate change may have on a specific
project. We will continue to push for comprehensive reforms in Congress
to decrease emissions across the public and private sectors and support
ongoing federal initiatives that clean-up our atmosphere.
Thank you for your leadership on this important matter. We look
forward to the completion of the final NEPA guidance later this year.
Sincerely,
Alan Lowenthal
Raul M. Grijalva
Scott Peters
Members of Congress.
[Also signed by the following Members of Congress:]
Alma S. Adams Barbara Lee
Donald S. Beyer, Jr. Ted Lieu
Earl Blumenauer Zoe Lofgren
Julia Brownley Doris O. Matsui
Lois Capps Betty McCollum
Matt Cartwright Jim McDermott
Kathy Castor James P. McGovern
Judy Chu Grace F. Napolitano
Katherine M. Clark Eleanor Holmes Norton
Emanuel Cleaver Chellie Pingree
Gerald E. Connolly Mark Pocan
John Conyers, Jr. Jared Polis
Mark DeSaulnier David E. Price
Ted Deutch Mike Quigley
Lloyd Doggett Bobby L. Rush
Donna Edwards John P. Sarbanes
Keith Ellison Jan Schakowsky
Anna G. Eshoo Adam B. Schiff
Elizabeth Esty Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott
Sam Farr Mike Thompson
John Garamendi Paul Tonko
Michael M. Honda Niki Tsongas
Jared Huffman Chris Van Hollen
Steve Israel Maxine Waters
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson Peter Welch
Jim Langevin
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Before I ask a question, I would like to
follow up on--I think the discussion is fascinating that my
colleague from California just gave, that the climate is always
changing, why are we doing this. And he is right. Global
average temperatures for the earth do go up and down over time.
But I would like to point out from the data that it goes up and
down quite slowly.
For example, the temperatures rose about 4+ Celsius between
the last ice age and modern times. Scientists believe that that
is because of the CO2 that was released into the
atmosphere that was released from the oceans. We are talking
about now tens of thousands of years that the glaciers melted,
sea level rose, about 120 meters--4 degrees in tens of
thousands of years.
Now we are looking at warming that, according to NASA, is
at least 10 times as fast as the warming that got us out of the
last ice age. Just in the past century alone we have increased
the global average temperature by a degree-and-a-half Celsius.
And unless we take drastic changes, we are on track for 3+ more
warming by the end of this century. So, we are talking about,
in two centuries, more change in the climate than took place in
tens of thousands of years. So let's be clear about the data.
We know that these changes have happened slowly in the past
by, as we have studied, the paleoclimate history. But I want to
remind my clients--I mean my colleagues, not my clients----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Lowenthal [continuing]. But maybe my clients, maybe--
that we have invested this civilization we are talking about
modern infrastructure of trillions of dollars of investments.
We have built homes, utilities, roads, ports, and so forth, and
they have been built with the idea that climate and sea level
rise would be relatively stable.
So, it makes sense, with this phenomenal investment, which
was based upon the assumption of a very stable climate and sea
level, that that has changed right now. And so, the issue is
how are we going to look at coastal flooding? How is that going
to affect infrastructure projects in the next 20 to 30 years?
So, I am asking the Director. How can the effects of
climate change, like rising sea levels, impact Federal
projects? We are not only talking about climate, and what our
actions do to affect climate change, but how does this new
guidance assist agencies with deciding how to analyze the
future effects of climate change like sea level rise on
possible projects? How are we going to deal with that issue?
Ms. Goldfuss. Congressman, thank you very much for that
question. As I referenced in the beginning, OMB and the
President's budget said that we have already spent $357 billion
on the direct costs of climate change.
So, it would make sense that, if we have the tools
available to see what the changes of the environment are going
to be due to sea level rise, that when we are planning a 30 to
40, or 50-year project like a bridge or rebuilding a road, or
even where you might site a particular project, that you would
take those pieces of information into consideration, so that
you don't continually rebuild the same bridge over and over
again at the same level, have it wash out, and then spend
taxpayer dollars to do it again in, say, 20 years or even less,
depending on where that project is.
So, what we recommend through the guidance is that, where
appropriate, depending on the project, that agencies look at
not only how their actions or what the contribution to climate
change will be, but then the changes in the environment that
might impact that project, or how that project will impact a
changed environment, is the better way to phrase it. Five
seconds.
Dr. Lowenthal. Just checking how much time. I will yield
back, Mr. Chair. I believe my time has expired.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Graves, you came in late. Are
you prepared? Are you ready?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are recognized.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate it. I will say, with all the confusion that has gone
on with the last few speakers, you all aren't making getting
old look very attractive.
But look at that, I got to say it without even getting
caught for it. That was great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Ms. Goldfuss, thank you for being
here today. In a previous life, I worked for years on
resiliency issues, and spent a lot of time working with a very
diverse group of folks, environmental community, oil and gas
community, and others, to help them----
Ms. Goldfuss. I am sorry, I missed it. Where did you say
you worked?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I worked on resilience issues.
Ms. Goldfuss. Oh, resilience.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I am from the state of Louisiana,
and worked on coastal issues. In fact, I worked with a number
of your predecessors over the years.
I am struggling with something, I guess, kind of
thematically about your testimony and some of the things that
are being discussed here.
Coastal Louisiana has lost about 1,900 square miles of
wetlands and some of the most productive ecosystem on this
entire continent. You sit here and you talk about the social
cost of carbon, and how we need to be mindful of the long-term
impacts of the social cost of carbon because you care about the
environment, you care about humanity, you care about our
citizens. Yet the Administration is effectively doing nothing
but throwing up roadblocks in our efforts to actually restore
wetlands and our efforts to actually improve the resiliency of
the community, improve or maintain the ecological productivity
of the coastal ecosystem in Louisiana.
So, I am having trouble giving you credibility, to be
honest with you, that you are here saying that, look, we are
doing this because this is the right thing for society, this is
the right thing for our environment, the right thing for our
community, yet the greatest cause of land loss in coastal
Louisiana is the Federal Government, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
I have repeatedly, repeatedly, gone to CEQ and said, ``You
all need to do something.'' This isn't something that is going
to happen in 50 to 100 years. Ms. Goldfuss, let's be honest.
You can be wildly successful in your efforts, wildly successful
in your efforts, and you are not going to see any reduction in
sea level rise for 50, 100 years. And so, we have problems
right now.
As I understand, my friends from California referenced
perhaps--I am not sure what they were talking about, I was not
here--but some of the communities in Louisiana that right now
are facing the need to have to leave, communities that have
been around for hundreds of years. Can you help explain that to
me, sort of this whole credibility gap that I see?
Ms. Goldfuss. Sure. First of all, I have repeatedly said
the social cost of carbon is a cost-benefit analysis tool used
in regulation. That is not what we are talking about today. The
climate guidance under NEPA does not require cost-benefit
analysis, and it is only referenced in the guidance as an
option available to decision makers, if they decide cost-
benefit analysis is appropriate for their review.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I have 2 minutes left.
Ms. Goldfuss. So----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Don't eat all my time. I have more
questions.
Ms. Goldfuss. All right. Let me just say on wetlands,
because I do think we share your concern, and are working
diligently at CEQ to address some of the problems that you have
raised--we put out a Presidential Memorandum that was focused
specifically on bringing private investment to some of these
problems, and lifting the standard of no net loss of wetlands
in this country.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But you are talking about private
investment. If I destroyed something, you would come after me.
And if I destroyed wetlands, you know who would come after me?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, yet they are the greatest
cause of loss to coastal wetlands in the Nation, and nothing is
being done about it. I don't understand that hypocrisy. I don't
understand at all.
Let me pivot and ask another question. When I recall what
the Administration did on the Keystone XL Pipeline, part of the
justification for rejecting the pipeline was because there was
a greenhouse gas analysis that was done to determine it was
going to contribute to emissions of greenhouse gas. That was
part of the justification for shutting it down.
Let me ask you this. When the Iran nuclear deal was done,
was there a social cost of carbon? Was there an analysis on
what----
Ms. Goldfuss. Excuse me. When what was done?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The Iran nuclear agreement, which
included lifting sanctions for Iran, I believe the fourth-
largest oil reserves in the world, and allowing them to access
global markets. Was there a greenhouse gas analysis that was
done there to determine the increase in emissions that would
result from that? And I would love to see the comparison of
that to the Keystone XL Pipeline, in terms of the additional
oil that would be put on global markets.
Ms. Goldfuss. I am afraid that might have to be a different
hearing. You would have to ask Secretary Kerry.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But doesn't that seem a little bit
strange, that you would blame Keystone XL Pipeline on
greenhouse gas emissions, yet for the Iran nuclear agreement
you have the fourth-largest reserves of the world--if I recall
correctly--of oil, hundreds of millions of barrels of oil
dumped on the markets? Do you see any hypocrisy there at all?
Ms. Goldfuss. Those are, again, both State Department
decisions.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Yes, but you are CEQ. You all are
the ones that are supposed to be addressing these issues from
an environmental perspective.
The last question is this. The Department of the Interior
recently came out with some offshore air emissions proposal.
And under----
The Chairman. Give me a break here. You can do it if you
can do it in 2 seconds.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. All right. Amen.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Goldfuss, thank you for being here and for your
tireless work on these issues.
Many see NEPA as a bedrock environmental statute aiming to
make smart decisions while we develop our infrastructure, and I
agree. However, I also see NEPA as a statute that protects the
public's voice and its power to protect their health and safety
as we develop their infrastructure.
As a Latino who represents a heavily Latino district, I
know firsthand how critical it is to have a process in place
that allows communities like mine, communities that have
historically been marginalized and lack a voice in policymaking
when it comes to projects in their backyards, a role and
opportunity for input.
So, I see an attack on NEPA as an attack on the public
voice. Anything that makes NEPA more consistent and reliable
strengthens that public voice.
Can you tell us how this NEPA guidance will help the public
have more influence over what happens in their communities?
Ms. Goldfuss. Congressman Gallego, great question. One of
the main points of NEPA, as Congress brilliantly wrote it, was
both to look at the environmental impacts of Federal
decisionmaking, but then also to allow the public to see those
environmental impacts. And we hear frequently from
environmental justice communities and then also from
communities that have the least but are bearing the biggest
burden of climate change impacts. Louisiana is one of the
states that has some of the biggest problems there, as is
Alaska.
The enormity of this problem is such that, having the
information for those communities about how our decisions, as
the Federal Government, could make their situation worse, is
the power of the people, basically, to see what our decisions
are. That is the transparency. By asking agencies to share what
the greenhouse gas emissions of their decisionmaking are, that
allows the public to see how each of our decisions contributes
to this overall problem.
So, this is the tool to allow the public the window into
the decisions we make, and how the problem of climate change is
either helped or burdened.
Mr. Gallego. Excellent. Thank you, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Hice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just in the context
of full disclosure, I have three degrees in theology, so that
is where I have come from. And this discussion immediately took
me there, in light of some other thoughts. And going back to
our founders, who recognized the creator, who gave us certain
inalienable rights, is the same creator who made clear in
Genesis 8 that, as long as the earth endures, there will be
seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day
and night, and that those will not cease.
So, within that context, we certainly need to be good
stewards of this earth. I think we all understand that. We are
responsible to do so.
When I was in high school, the big talk was that we were
entering into an ice age again, and then it all turned to
global warming several years later. Now, we are talking about
climate change. I think we all recognize the climate changes,
and we need to be good stewards of this earth.
But I want to go back to some things that came up
specifically in the guidance. I am a bit unsure as to what the
council would consider a significant level of greenhouse gas
emissions. What is the bar that to pass is dangerous?
Ms. Goldfuss. We have not set a significant level. We have
instead asked agencies to rely on their expertise and, if the
tools and methodologies and data are available, then they
should do it.
So, to say one level is more significant than another was
problematic. In our initial analysis, we heard two different
competing factors around the 25,000 threshold we set
previously, which, one, was that some agencies confused that as
a threshold for actually doing an EIS, which was not the
intention, and then also the very practical concern that if you
are determining whether or not you are above or below 25,000
metric tons of CO2 equivalent, then you are already
quantifying.
Dr. Hice. OK, so we have agencies----
Ms. Goldfuss. So, rather than setting a threshold, yes----
Dr. Hice [continuing]. That are facing an arbitrary--they
don't know what to--are any of them even going to respond to
this? I mean we have----
Ms. Goldfuss. The guidance is quite clear, that if the
tools and methodologies are available, our recommendation is to
quantify.
Dr. Hice. To do what they want. OK, so we have the
quantitative and qualitative.
Ms. Goldfuss. Correct.
Dr. Hice. Taxpayers paying for both of this. And yet, if
there is no standard that says--I mean this is simple math--if
you go beyond this level, you are getting into a dangerous
zone. And yet there is no level that says so. So these agencies
have nothing to work with.
How do you deal with quantitative and qualitative, when we
are not even dealing with simple math?
Ms. Goldfuss. I would argue that we have taken out the
confusion around the particular threshold that would have
required people to quantify anyway, and instead say if you have
the capacity, the tools, the methodologies, and the data to
quantify your greenhouse gas emissions, we would recommend that
you do so.
Dr. Hice. So everyone does is differently----
Ms. Goldfuss. And if they don't----
Dr. Hice. That doesn't do away with the confusion. That
adds to it. It gives everyone a choice to determine themselves.
Ms. Goldfuss. That they should quantify their greenhouse
gas emissions. That is what it says. If they are not able to,
then they have to reference the facts that the methodologies
and the tools are not available----
Dr. Hice. How do you deal with the Supreme Court case,
public citizen case, that says agencies cannot be responsible
for areas for which they have no authority, and yet we have the
Department of Agriculture and Interior, and so forth. They
don't have any authority to determine these issues that you are
asking them to do.
Ms. Goldfuss. Once again, guidance in the construct of the
regulations that are laid out by NEPA that look at direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts, that is also, once again,
bound by a rule of reason. So, what are the reasonably
foreseeable impacts of the action? Those are the tools and
methodologies that we are referencing.
So, it is not endless research. We even say to agencies,
``Do not conduct new research''----
Dr. Hice. But that contradicts what the Supreme Court has
said.
Ms. Goldfuss. No, because this would be within their
statutory authority to look at the reasonably foreseeable
impacts of the decision that they are making. And that is long-
standing NEPA practice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Lucky you. I know you have a
timeline when you have to get out of here, and we will get you
out in plenty of time, because I am the last set of questions--
kind of questions.
First of all, I appreciate you being here. I appreciate
this voluntary guidance, a full employment for attorneys act. I
am making the assumption that CEQ, when you were doing this,
coming up with this guidance, tried to use courts'
interpretations of the limitations on NEPA as part of your
analysis and recommendations. You looked at that, I am
assuming.
Ms. Goldfuss. Certainly.
The Chairman. OK. So let's assume I am the evil oil and gas
company that Mr. Grijalva wants me to be. And I want to get an
approval for a lease on Federal lands. Currently, NEPA analysis
would have me to quantify or qualify the greenhouse gas
emissions from the drilling activity over the course of the
lease. That is correct, right?
Ms. Goldfuss. Correct.
The Chairman. But under----
Ms. Goldfuss. It wouldn't recommend.
The Chairman [continuing]. Your guidances that you have in
here, the NEPA analysis would now also have to consider the
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation of the resource,
combustion of the emission at either the power plant or
refinery, and if the product is exported, the combustion at the
end use, even if it is a foreign country.
Therefore, under the guidance, it requires inclusions of
effects of greenhouse gas emissions from users of the resource
that are beyond the control of the permitting agency. The
problem now comes----
Ms. Goldfuss. The reasonably foreseeable impacts.
The Chairman. Just a minute, let me finish. There is no
question mark yet.
The problem comes in here that the Supreme Court's
precedent says that where an agency has no ability to prevent a
certain effect due to its statutory authority over the relevant
actions, the agency cannot be considered a legally relevant
cause of the effect, which essentially means that indirect
effects cannot be considered if the agency cannot control them.
But that is not what your guidance actually says. You are
familiar, I am assuming--well, that is a stupid question--OMB
circular A4, whether you are familiar or not with that, does
require a 7 percent discount, and it does require that domestic
impacts are given. And if there is a global impact, that has to
be considered separately from the domestic impacts.
But the problem is the social cost of carbon, which you put
as one of the other options that companies can use as they are
going through NEPA, does not require either the 7 percent
discount rate or, if it is required, it does not have to list
domestic costs separately from global costs. So if there is a
final decision on this using the OMB cost, it is going to be at
variance with OMB Circular A4, which is at variance with the
social cost of carbon that is given as one of the options,
which ultimately means the end result is lawsuit time.
See, once somebody has responsibility to do something, it
does not necessarily mean they have the authority to do it. You
do not have the authority to do this. This is why you
repeatedly say this is all voluntary. But it is voluntary that
everyone simply has to do. If not, the lawsuits will be there.
And, once again, if a court uses your voluntary guidance as
an issue of what somebody has to do, does that not become de
facto enforcement of what takes place?
Ms. Goldfuss. Is that my question?
The Chairman. Yes or no, go ahead.
Ms. Goldfuss. No, we do not see it that way.
The Chairman. Well, OK. Then you are seeing it wrong,
because, unfortunately, it already happened. Wild Earth
Guardians has already sued BLM on this particular issue. The
amount of lawsuits are going to increase because of this. It
may be voluntary, but it isn't voluntary. Everyone would still
have to do it. And once the courts use this as a rationale and
a reason, that becomes the de facto responsibility that has to
be there. That is why this is such a dangerous and difficult
approach, unless you are an attorney, in which case this is
full employment for the rest of your life-cycle.
Now, let me----
Ms. Goldfuss. The courts were already addressing this
issue. So, either way, it was going to be----
The Chairman. No, no, no.
Ms. Goldfuss [continuing]. Resolved there.
The Chairman. You have exacerbated the problem. That is why
I use that old Rumpole of the Bailey line. Horace Rumpole did
not have to obey his wife, but he knew he had to obey her. That
is why he always referred to her as ``She Who Must Be Obeyed.''
That is what this silly guidance is--what has to be obeyed.
And you know what will be the result if one does not, even
though your agency does not have the legal ability to enforce
it. It is not enforceable, it is voluntary, unless somebody
tries to do it. You have given all the options out to the other
groups now to make sure that if they don't do it, there is
going to be a lawsuit, so they better do it, because it has to
be obeyed. It is not your responsibility, it is not your
authority, but you did it anyway, and that is why I object to
it.
With that, I also want to thank you very much for sitting
here with us for over an hour. I appreciate your time. You have
had to answer every question, because there is no one to share
the responsibility with you. But then you did the guidance, so
it is your own fault.
Ms. Goldfuss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. But I do appreciate you being here. And with
that, if there is no other business--actually, I have
statements to say here--but there is a rule that says our
Committee Record is open. If anyone has other questions, we
will be sending them to you. We ask you to respond to those in
the appropriate amount of time. You know the drill we go
through.
And if there is no other business, we got you out of here
on time.
Ms. Goldfuss. That is appreciated. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here, and this committee
will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]