Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Waxman for yielding the time.

Colleagues, we are dealing with a bill here, H.R. 1900, that relates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC is an independent agency that reviews electric transmission lines that go across States, interstate electric transmission lines. They also review interstate oil pipelines, and they also review the interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a very important subject.

Now, this bill relates only to the natural gas pipeline authority of FERC. The country right now is in a natural gas revolution. It has been remarkable. The United States is now a net exporter of petroleum. This has happened very quickly, and FERC has responded very well over time on the expansion of the natural gas market. That is why it is so confounding as to why we need this new bill that is going to short-circuit FERC's review power.

Right now, FERC grants over 90 percent of the interstate natural gas pipelines across the country. This bill really is an unnecessary piece of legislation in search of a problem. In committee, the bill was panned by the FERC professional staff. The administration strongly opposes it.

Instead of expediting expansion of natural gas pipelines across the country, it would disrupt FERC's natural gas permitting process which, right now, is already getting thousands of miles of pipelines permitted in a timely manner, like I said, over 90 percent of the applications.

Instead, the bill establishes arbitrary and inflexible deadlines for FERC and other agencies to issue permits; and there are several major problems with the bill, particularly short-circuiting the permitting process for the most complex projects.

The bill says we have a 12-month deadline, no matter what kind of project is proposed. FERC currently decides 90 percent of the permit applications within that 12-month period; and in July, the Pipeline Trade Association testified that FERC's existing permitting process is generally very good.

Second, in addition to this arbitrary 12-month deadline for all applications, it would rush environmental reviews for complex projects. The bill's rigid deadline applies to every pipeline project, regardless of complexity.

It doesn't make sense to apply the same 12-month deadline to, say, a 30-mile interstate pipeline that doesn't cross any rivers, doesn't have environmental concerns, doesn't go through population areas, and then apply the same 12-month deadline to the most complex, multi-state, interstate pipeline initiative that goes across environmentally-sensitive areas, maybe across rivers, through highly populated areas.

Third, the bill also will lead to unnecessary permit denial. What we heard from FERC is that, instead of speeding up the permitting process for natural gas pipelines, it is very likely that this bill will slow down permitting. If FERC can't finish its analysis by the required deadline, they may have no choice but to deny an application that otherwise could have been granted.

Now, before I came to Congress, I practiced environmental law, and what I learned during that time is for those complex projects there is a lot of give and take that needs to happen. You have to discuss mitigation. You have to discuss are there any alternatives.

Oftentimes, these business owners, it is in their interest to have a little more time to figure out the right path for a pipeline or a transmission line or something like that. You get input from local governments, local communities, neighborhood associations, environmental groups; and you wind up with a better project.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman.

Another serious problem with the bill is that it transforms FERC into a super-permitting agency. Now that sounds pretty scary, but that is what it does.

It says that the bill provides for permits to automatically go into effect if an agency does not approve or deny them by the bill's arbitrary 90-day deadline. So FERC would be issuing Clean Air Act permits, Clean Water Act permits, even BLM right-of-way through Federal land permits.

These are functions that FERC does not have the expertise or resources to carry out. This is an unworkable provision that could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the Nation's environmental laws.

Finally, I know many people on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about eminent domain and when we give power to government to condemn lands. Well, here is a reminder for everyone. We should all remember that when FERC issues a certificate of public convenience and necessity, it gives a pipeline company the power of eminent domain. The power to take someone's property should not be conferred without FERC taking the time it needs for a thorough analysis and thoughtful decisionmaking.

So for all of those reasons, I urge opposition to the bill.

BREAK IN TRNSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 1900, if an agency cannot complete its review of a gas pipeline permit application by the bill's arbitrary 90-day or, in some cases, 120-day deadline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is required to automatically issue the permit.

This permitting provision broadly applies to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and rights-of-way through Federal lands.

It simply goes too far, is completely unreasonable, and it runs counter to the author's intent. The intent of the author is to speed the approval of interstate natural gas pipelines. Instead, what this provision will do, if my amendment is not adopted, is create greater delays and, I believe, greater likelihood of litigation that will delay our important natural gas infrastructure in this country.

So my amendment is straightforward. It simply strikes this provision that requires FERC to automatically issue other agencies' permits.

You heard Mr. Waxman say--and I said the same thing--that what this bill does is turns FERC, whose jurisdiction is limited to reviewing interstate electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and oil pipelines, into a superpermitting agency. It goes and grabs EPA's jurisdiction and authority, the Interior Department's, the Army Corps of Engineers', and other agencies', and settles into FERC this superpermitting authority that really is completely unreasonable.

Right now, these permits are typically detailed documents that include safety requirements, emission limits, technology and operator requirements, and conditions to ensure that communities are protected and the water, wetlands, and other environmental resources are considered, especially when you have a complex interstate natural gas pipeline coming through your communities.

Agencies need the ability and time to analyze all of these details and then draft appropriate permit conditions to protect our communities back home, protect the health and safety, protect landowner rights, and propose cleanup requirements in case there is an accident.

Under H.R. 1900, FERC acts as a superpermitting agency. If an agency cannot meet the strict deadlines, FERC apparently will write and issue the permit itself. This is a recipe for natural gas pipeline delays, and that is why so many are fearful of the consequences of this bill. After all, FERC now already grants 90 percent of the natural gas interstate pipeline applications that come before it.

So it makes no sense to have FERC issuing permits for other agencies. FERC doesn't have the expertise to grant land management rights-of-way through Federal land or to set water pollution discharge limits. That is not a workable solution. It is a recipe for greater litigation and delay.

Besides litigation, delays, and other complications, there are going to be real environmental and safety impacts if permits automatically go into effect without the responsible agencies completing the necessary analysis. It could result in permits being issued that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Nation's environmental laws. That is why the Pipeline Safety Trust and numerous environmental organizations strongly oppose the bill.

The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA also express concern that automatic permitting could lead to permits that do not meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. This could result in harmful water pollution and air pollution.

So in addition to delays, lawsuits, and environmental harm, automatically issuing permits without an agency confirming the legal requirements is going to undermine the public's acceptance of interstate natural gas pipelines going through our communities. That is the last thing you want to happen.

We are undergoing a national gas revolution in this country that, generally, is very positive. So why would you try to pass this bill that would lead to greater litigation delays, uncertainty, and that the industry itself says may not be necessary?

Agencies should act expeditiously on pipeline applications, but they also need time to conduct the necessary environmental and safety reviews. In some cases, it will take longer than a 90- or 120-day environmental review. Some of these pipelines are very complex and they go over hundreds of miles through environmentally, sensitive areas. People need time and the businesses need time to work through the conditions.

So we should not sacrifice these protections when the pipeline permitting process is already working well, nor should we take critical health, safety, and environmental functions away from the agencies.

My amendment doesn't fix all the problems, but it eliminates an unworkable provision. If you do not want to complicate the interstate natural gas pipeline process that the industry says is generally very good, then I urge you to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Source