Witnesses Agree: Manchin's Proposed Judicial Reforms, Electric Transmission Provisions Necessary

Hearing

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

"Yes," replied the witnesses.

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

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

"It's necessary," replied Mr. Jason M. Stanek, Former Chairman, Maryland Public Service Commission.

"Yes," said Mr. Chad A. Teply, Senior Vice President -- Transmission and Gulf of Mexico, Williams.

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

"Yes," responded Mr. Smyth.

"Most definitely," said Mr. Stanek.

"Yes," replied Mr. Teply.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

Source