Senate Energy and Natural Resources (Murkowski): An oversight hearing to examine the Federal Regulatory Commission.

Committee will come to order. I apologize for the late start time. I was, uh, I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee along with a couple of our members, and, uh, as we often find ourselves in that position, uh, we were in a markup and, um, had any of us left, they would have lost a quorum. So we ran over here as quickly as we could.

Today, the, uh, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources holds a hearing to conduct oversight over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, the Commission regulates the interstate transmission and wholesale market of electricity and natural gas, as well as oil and gas pipelines and hydroelectric power. It ensures that electricity rates are just and reasonable and licenses facilities within its statutory jurisdiction. All of these things happen to be vital to America's energy dominance, ensuring both our security and prosperity at home and also our ability to advance the interests of the United States on the world stage by supplying the energy needs of others. Today we'll be hearing from FERC's 5 commissioners to report on their priorities and the commission's operations.

They are Chairman Laura Swett, Commissioners David Rosner, Lindsey See, Judy Chang, and David Lissert. Following my opening statement today and that of Ranking Member Heinrich, we'll hear opening statements from each of the commissioners, followed by questions from each of the senators in attendance. There was a time when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission operated largely outside the public spotlight, but those days, of course, are now over. FERC now sits at the center of some of the most important questions facing our country. Reliable electricity, affordable energy, data centers, manufacturing, national security— every one of these issues in its own way now runs directly through FERC.

Some estimates suggest that the Commission regulates activity representing roughly 5% of the American economy. This, of course, understates the matter because in reality, the Commission's influence reaches much, much further than that. Energy is an input for basically everything we produce, everything we do. So when energy becomes more expensive or when it becomes less reliable, every American pays the price in far more ways than one. That, of course, makes FERC's mission more important now than ever.

The United States is experiencing the fastest growth in electricity demand in a generation. After years of relatively flat load growth, utilities across our country are now forecasting dramatic increases, increases driven by data centers, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, electrification, and industrial development. It means America is building again. It means investment is returning. But none of it happens if we cannot produce and deliver enough reliable electricity.

That's why I was encouraged by the Commission's recent action under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act addressing how regional transmission organizations and independent system operators manage large load interconnections. Rather than imposing a rigid one-size-fits-all federal mandate, the Commission directed 6 regional grid operators to reexamine how large data centers and other major new customers might connect to the grid, with particular attention to interconnection delays, who pays for the necessary upgrades, and what impact all these things might ultimately have on consumers. These are extraordinarily difficult questions. No one suggests that they are easy. Large data centers create tremendous economic opportunity, but they also consume enormous amounts of electricity.

Existing ratepayers should not be forced to subsidize costs that properly belong to new entrants, but we also cannot allow outdated processes to prevent new investment from connecting to the grid. Getting that balance right will, of course, be difficult, but I'm confident that if you maintain your current trajectory, you, as our commissioners, will be more than up to that great task. I'm also encouraged by FERC's recent efforts to improve the permitting process for natural gas infrastructure. FERC is modernizing environmental reviews, reducing unnecessary delays, those that don't provide any additional value added on the environmental front, and it's expanding the use of blanket certificates for routine upgrades. Every year that we happen to delay needed infrastructure is another year that Americans have to pay higher prices and face greater reliability risks.

More importantly, I hope today's discussion reinforces something that should unite all of us regardless of political party. As this committee continues its work on permitting reform, I hope we can build on the bipartisan momentum that has emerged around many of these issues. I look forward to getting perspectives from each one of you today on the challenges ahead and to working with each of you to ensure that we lower costs for consumers while simultaneously improving grid reliability. Ranking Member Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and a special thanks to all 5 of FERC's commissioners for attending this hearing today.

We very much appreciate having you here. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has long been an important independent agency. It serves the public interest by regulating electricity, hydroelectric dams, natural gas, and oil in a manner that is both fair and impartial from the president and from Congress as required by statute. Now, historically considered by some to be a bit of a sleepy agency, FERC faces a very pivotal time in our nation's history right now. Electricity prices are rising and electricity supply has not been able to keep up with demand.

According to a recent report, 75% of U.S. adults say that they've noticed their home energy costs increasing in recent years. Some of that blame can be squarely placed on our current president. I recently released a report on how this administration is waging a war on cheap, clean energy, and the impact of that is rising energy costs. The administration is slow walking installing 73 gigawatts— think about that, gigawatts— of solar, 43 gigawatts of storage, 30 gigawatts of onshore wind, and 16 gigawatts of offshore wind. Constraining this buildout would increase economy-wide utility costs by approximately 11.6 $1.1 billion per year.

But that is not the only reason that costs are rising. We're also seeing a rapid increase in electricity demand and are hampered by not getting enough power from generators to end users and struggling to quickly add new needed generation sources. Luckily, we can take steps to improve our grid to help make— help move electricity more efficiently and bring new power sources online. I recently launched an initiative called Grid for Growth, a plan to meet surging electricity demand without shifting the costs of that to consumers. This effort complements ongoing efforts to pass bipartisan permitting reform.

And as part of the effort, last week I introduced the Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act to create a faster path for generator interconnection. Modeled after ERCOT's Connect and Manage process, projects are rewarded for being flexible in their output by getting onto the grid faster. Other bills will follow in the next few weeks and months, but our ability to meet the rising needs of the grid are based in large part on our ability to build more interregional transmission lines. That is why permitting reform is so important. Interregional transmission lines can be the best line of defense against extreme weather conditions, improving reliability, and reducing consumer costs.

While FERC requires some interregional transmission planning under Orders No. 1000 And 1920, this coordination has not, unfortunately, produced a substantial number of interregional transmission projects in the last decade. We need to find a way to build more high-voltage transmission lines in the next decade. Our ability to grow our economy depends on it. And to FERC's credit, the agency has taken active steps to confront energy challenges.

Last month, FERC issued 6 show-cause orders requiring grid operators and their transmission owners to justify or propose changes to their current tariffs with respect to large load customers. These steps by FERC can help protect consumers and encourage grid operators to integrate new advanced technologies when adding new large loads to the grid. FERC choosing to address major electricity users like data centers and manufacturers is an important step in the right direction. Nevertheless, more action can and should be taken to ensure that consumers are protected from sky-high costs associated with data centers, manufacturers, and other large loads. I have been working on a bill intended to do just that and hope to speak more about that soon.

However, all of these efforts that I mentioned will be meaningless if the independence of FERC is erased. The Supreme Court's recent decision has put the impartiality of independent agencies at risk. Now more than ever, FERC's mission to ensure that utility rates remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential is critical to making sure millions of Americans can keep their lights on. During this once-in-a-generation moment, I continue to believe that regulatory certainty and the freedom for commissioners of independent agencies like FERC to act in a way to provide that certainty will be critical in meeting the energy challenges of today. And I hope to discuss these issues with each of you during this hearing and very much look forward to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich. We'll now turn to each of the commissioners here today to give their opening statements, and of course your full statements will be entered into the record in full. We'll begin with FERC Chairman Laura Swett. The Senate confirmed Chairman Swett back in October of 2025. Prior to that, she served at FERC as a legal advisor to two commissioners, including former FERC Chairman, and she litigated Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act matters for 15 years.

Chairman Swett, you're now recognized and you may give your opening statement. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, members of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today. My testimony is rooted in the core principles that anchor my approach as FERC Chairman, that is affordability, efficiency, and legal durability.

For many households, higher utility bills are debilitating burdens with personal consequences. I understand this firsthand from my childhood. Monthly bills caused me deep anxiety when I was a child, and I carry the weight of that financial stress with me every day in the way that I lead this agency. It forms my resolve to ensure that families across the country don't have that same burden in shouldering unnecessary costs. As electricity demand accelerates, the Commission is acting decisively to ensure that the grid remains reliable and affordable.

For too long, this country has deferred critical decisions essential to maintaining the grid, and that era has ended. The responsibility to steer our country through the energy future is squarely upon me and my 4 colleagues. The Commission's actions under my leadership reflect an unwavering commitment to our statutory obligations to ensure just and reasonable rates. At no point in its history has FERC advanced a more comprehensive set of reforms designed to safeguard American consumers, nor been, I think, subject to leadership as consumed with honoring the law as I am. From aggressively modernizing natural gas permitting to instituting far-reaching transparency requirements in our June orders, We are executing a disciplined strategy to reduce costs while reinforcing reliability and encouraging infrastructure investment.

And that is a very tough needle to thread, and I am committed to doing it. At our June meeting, we took bold action to strengthen cost discipline and reliability. You've mentioned, both of you, that we ordered the 6 jurisdictional electric markets to produce the most detailed cost transparency measures the Commission has ever required. Those actions should equip our state counterparts who are responsible for doling out household bills with tools to assess the expenditures, defend ratepayers, and ensure that emerging load drivers such as data centers do not impose unjustified costs on households or small businesses. Additionally, we've established transparent protective rules for integrating new loads quickly without compromising reliability.

Still in the vein of affordability, the— one of the most effective ways to lower energy prices is to eliminate infrastructure constraints that artificially restrict supply. Recent extreme weather events show this clearly. The regions that don't have enough gas pipeline capacity experience prices many times higher than those with sufficient infrastructure. These disparities translate directly into consumer hardship. In response, the Commission is implementing targeted reforms to streamline permitting and accelerate project development.

Following the Seven County decision and under my leadership, we are realigning our environmental review practices with the Commission's statutory role as an economic regulator, a fact that appears to have been lost on several of my predecessors. Since I joined the Commission late last year, FERC has proposed significantly expanding expanding blanket authorizations for routine pipeline activities and initiated parallel efforts for LNG and hydropower to ensure that these projects can move quickly without burdensome case-specific reviews, but based on FERC's decades of experience. These reforms— these reforms and deliberate recalibration of our processes will reduce administrative friction while preserving full statutory compliance. More energy means lower bills. We're moving fast but maintaining regulatory excellence so that those investing in and building infrastructure are less vulnerable to judicial review through excellent orders and the associated gridlock and wasted resources that come with orders that are not.

In closing, the work ahead demands clarity, urgency, and strong leadership. Our systems are changing faster than ever, and the choices we make now will determine whether the nation is prepared for the coming decades. We've taken meaningful steps in the past 9 months of my tenure, but the path forward requires sustained resolve, smarter tools, and dexterity as new technology and pressures emerge. I and my family have made many sacrifices so that I could realize the honor bestowed upon me by the President to guide our country through the next few years and to success on the other side. I take that commitment with grave resolve.

And so long as I am in charge, I will push our country to an energy system that is affordable, resilient, and built for the future with focus and determination and an unwavering commitment to the American ratepayer who depend on us every single day. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Swett. We'll now hear from Commissioner David Rosner. He formerly served as an energy analyst at FERC. He was also someone who spent 2 years detailed off to this committee in addition to prior service that he had at the U.S. Department of Energy. He has served on FERC as a commissioner since 2024, including as chairman for several months in 2025.

The chair now recognizes Commissioner David Rosner. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, Chairwoman Powell, and members of the committee, it's an honor to appear before you alongside my colleagues to discuss FERC's work to deliver affordable and reliable energy for all Americans and our commitment to upholding Congress's vision for a bipartisan, independent, resource-neutral regulator. This mission entrusted to us, while simple to articulate, is increasingly complex to execute. Energy demand continues to grow at a pace that we haven't seen in a generation.

Driven by growth in new industries like artificial intelligence, reshoring manufacturing, and increased use of electricity in homes and businesses. And we face these challenges at a time when families and small businesses struggle with high prices, especially in their utility bills. So while meeting this moment presents challenges, it also creates opportunities for us to modernize our nation's energy infrastructure. Upgrading our energy system is necessary to ensure that every American receives reliable and affordable power and is essential to our country's economic competitiveness and national security. With this in mind, I'd like to highlight a few of the specific actions FERC has taken to confront the challenges and realize the opportunities before us.

First, we are accelerating the addition of new electric generation of all kinds. Building energy resources needed to meet growing demand and reducing consumer costs is my top focus. We have implemented FERC's landmark Order No. 2023 Generator interconnection form— reforms and fast-tracked more than 50 gigawatts of shovel-ready power plants. Looking forward, I'm encouraging grid operators to deploy automation and artificial intelligence tools that have been shown to accelerate steps in the interconnection study process from years to weeks.

Second, we're establishing forward-looking grid planning centered around reliability, affordability, and economic growth. This year, FERC will begin acting on transmission providers' proposals to implement Order No. 1920, Which modernized long-term transmission planning. When I arrived as a commissioner, this rule was divided along party lines. Thanks to extensive state engagement and collaborative problem solving, I'm very proud that it is bipartisan and unanimously supported.

Third, we are emphasizing predictability, speed, and legal durability for infrastructure permitting. Since January 2025, FERC has issued over 120 permits for hydropower and natural gas projects, moving from NEPA review to final permit more than 30% faster than was typical during the last decade. Critically, we've done this without compromising quality. FERC's permits have routinely been upheld in court in recent years. And looking to the future, permitting efficiency will become only more essential as demand growth accelerates.

Fourth, we are embracing innovative pathways to power data centers and other large loads while protecting consumers. Over the last year, the Commission has acted to ensure that demand growth leads to a more reliable, affordable, and sustainable grid, and that America can win the AI race without regular families paying for it. At FERC, this is another top priority. In December and January, the Commission implemented programs in the PJM and SBP regions to pair new large loads with new generation. This pairing reduces how much these projects lean on the grid, it minimizes the need to construct additional transmission upgrades, it promotes flexible operations, and it helps ensure that new loads pay their fair share.

In parallel, more than 30 states have adopted special retail rate structures for large loads, an important complement to FERC action and a reminder of the cooperative federalism needed to protect regular consumers. Finally, building upon the progress and the record developed in response to Secretary Wright's ANOPR in June, the Commission issued a show cause order to each regional grid operator asking them to modernize their rules for interconnecting large loads. These orders are based upon 4 key pillars: protect consumers, enhance transparency, safeguard reliability, and foster innovation. Put simply, The goal is lowering costs, protecting grid reliability, and helping new customers and power plants get online faster. Fifth, we continue to enhance grid security and reliability through modernization and flexibility.

It's essential that we continue to deploy 21st century reliability solutions like advanced demand response, dynamic line ratings, predictive artificial intelligence, and emerging cybersecurity technologies. And FERC's work now includes the development of robust reliability standards for large loads. Sixth, we're staying laser-focused on affordability. In addition to the examples I've already mentioned, over the last 2 years, FERC has approved expanded competitive electric markets in the West and the Southeast, which will enable customers access to lower-cost power. And in PJM, we approved a temporary price cap that saved consumers more than $25 billion.

It's my priority to deliver more examples like this in 2026. Finally, I'll conclude by highlighting the value of our current consensus-driven mindset. I'm immensely proud that the vast majority of orders I have voted on have been bipartisan and unanimous, including every single energy project permit. This consensus ensures regulatory predictability, legal durability, and strong outcomes for all Americans, informed by 5 distinct distinct perspectives among the Commissioners. I want to thank my colleagues for their collaboration, which I'm confident will continue to deliver for the country.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. Thanks so much, Commissioner Rosner. We'll hear next from Commissioner Lindsay See. Uh, she became a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2024. Prior to that, she had served as the Solicitor General of the State of West Virginia, uh, and in that position she argued before the U.S. Supreme Court at least twice.

Before that, she was a litigator in private practice practicing with the law firm of Gibson Dunn. Commissioner See, we now recognize you. You may begin. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, committee members, thank you for inviting me and my fellow commissioners to appear before you today. While the 5 of us are at this table, please let me also recognize the hundreds of FERC employees whose expertise, integrity, and dedication make the Commission's work possible.

I'm honored to serve with public servants of their high caliber, and the country is better for their work. The energy landscape has changed dramatically since the last time I and two of my colleagues last appeared before this committee in 2024. Some issues persist, but many new ones have risen with striking urgency. All of them are defined by the overarching reality that America needs more power. And demand growth from domestic manufacturing, AI and data centers, and other sectors is an opportunity.

A growing load and a growing grid are signs of a growing economy. But American competitiveness depends on our ability to deliver reliable and affordable power. So FERC— at FERC, we need decisive, flexible action within our legal authorities that let our regulatory framework keep pace with America's needs. That requires focus on 3 priorities. Speed to power, keeping electricity affordable, and the kind of regulatory certainty that gets steel in the ground.

So first, on speed to power, we need processes to get new generation and large new loads connected to the grid quickly, and pipelines and transmission that get power where and when it's needed. FERC has taken important steps to meet these challenges. We've talked about them already. Last month, for instance, we issued a series of orders that require clear rules for how organized electricity markets to study and integrate large new loads. These actions are designed to improve transparency, coordination, and speed when it comes to large load interconnection.

They also recognize that regional differences matter as part of a shared goal of connecting new demand safely and efficiently. We're also reforming permitting processes to speed infrastructure review. We've taken a close look at what NEPA does and does not require, as well as cut out unneeded construction delays after a review is done. Modernizing permitting can uphold our statutory duties while improving predictability and helping get needed projects built. Second, we have to keep electricity affordable.

Building the infrastructure to meet growing demand is expensive, but as we make investments across the electric system, we have to keep the consumers who ultimately pay for them at the center of our decisions. One path to cost responsibility is encouraging alternative transmission technologies when they make engineering and economic sense. While not always the right fit, these technologies can get more out of the existing systems, speed interconnection, and cut down on costly traditional upgrades that would otherwise show up in customers' bills. We also have to keep a close watch to ensure well-functioning competitive electricity markets. Over time, organized markets have delivered real value for consumers, but today's markets were not designed for the pace and scale of modern large load growth.

So FERC is focused on reviewing novel solutions we're seeing from various market regions, and we're also keeping close attention on the regions that have more work ahead. In these and other areas, our guiding tenet should be that those who drive costs or benefit from new infrastructure pay their way. By keeping that focus, building needed infrastructure and protecting customers can be complementary goals and not competing ones. Third, regulatory certainty drives infrastructure. As a lawyer, I never forget that if FERC orders don't hold up in court, infrastructure doesn't get built.

States, utilities, and developers need confidence in our regulatory processes. That comes from applying the statutes Congress enacted to the specific records before us. It also means not hesitating to improve when experience shows that we can move faster and in a transparent and legally responsible way. That drive to improve is animating our recent work in natural gas infrastructure. In May, we proposed expanding the blanket certificate program by upping cost thresholds and adding new categories of routine projects for streamlined review.

The goal is to modernize permitting to reflect today's infrastructure and cost responsibility needs while preserving resources for more complex reviews. One of my priorities has been expanding that approach to the liquefied natural gas infrastructure project category. I'm proud that we're now several months into a process to design a more efficient and predictable program for the LNG space that fully meets our legal responsibilities. We're also focused on our hydropower-related reviews. Hydro brings critical reliability features to the grid, and I support the Commission's continuing efforts to find opportunities to improve post-licensing processes in this important area too.

Today's energy landscape reveals extraordinary opportunities, but also generational challenges to meet them. In these areas and the others I know we'll be discussing today, I respect FERC's twin duties not to go beyond our statutory limits, but also not to hold back exercising the power we do have in in a moment that requires decisive action. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I'm looking forward to the discussion and questions. Thanks so much, Commissioner See. We're going to hear next from Commissioner Judy Chang.

Commissioner Chang, along with Commissioners See and Rosner, has served on FERC since 2024. Prior to that, she served in Massachusetts state government. As Undersecretary of Energy and Climate Solutions and also taught at the Kennedy School at Harvard University. The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Jane. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the Committee.

Thank you very much for inviting me and my fellow Commissioners to testify here today. Since I last appeared before the Committee 2 years ago, the country's energy sector has transformed at a pace that would have previously been unimaginable.

From the position at the Commission, I'm focused on setting the rules of the road that ensure that our energy system can keep up with the rapid change and continue to deliver affordable and reliable electricity to the American people. I would like to highlight 3 priorities: set clear rules, upkeep efficient markets, and drive efficient planning and building of infrastructure. First, our most pressing mandate is to set clear rules to enable the interconnection of new large loads and deliver the electricity needed to power them while protecting existing customers against reliability risks and unwarranted cost shifts. The Commission has been tasked with solving this problem, and over the last year, we have taken action based on the substantial record before us. Last month, we reached an important milestone through the initiation of 6 regional proceedings in which I highlighted a, a number of important issues.

Given the increased cost of power in many regions of the country, affordability must continue to be top of mind. The Commission must ensure that creating new pathways for large loads does not lead to major cost shift to existing customers. Though we are improving our understanding of the types of tools that can provide these protections, ultimately the details will matter. In addition, the sheer size of the large computational loads will have major reliability implications for the grid. I will continue to work closely with NERC to understand the risks and make sure they are addressed through appropriate commission action.

With ever-increasing importance, advanced transmission technologies will play a major role in getting most out of our existing existing and expanding grid, which will in turn help ensure affordability and reliability. Overall, the Commission has an important responsibility as both the economic and reliability regulator to take actions that protect consumers. Second, as we experience rapid growth, the Commission must work to ensure that our wholesale electricity markets continue to deliver efficiencies for customers. For decades, FERC has promoted the development of competition in the electricity and natural gas sectors, and I remain fundamentally supportive of those efforts. Our current market structures have been tailored over time to meet each region's specific needs, but they must now adapt to the major changes underway.

In the Eastern Interconnection, markets must find ways to keep pace with the growing demand. On the supply side, by modifying capacity energy and ancillary services markets, to provide the right economic signals to incent new generation and preserve needed existing resources. And on the demand side, by enabling more savings through increased participation of demand-side resources. In the Western interconnection, new markets are taking shape that may present more complex designs, seams, and dynamics to resolve than their Eastern counterparts. One of my priorities to work work closely with the market operators and, and the Western stakeholders to identify and address those challenges to optimize operations that prevent potential manipulation.

Third, the Commission must continue to set clear rules and regulations so that the infrastructure needed to support the U.S. economic growth can be built. More focus is still needed on planning, particularly on the backbone transmission system through regional and interregional processes. Efficiencies. Order 1920 set the appropriate approach for regions to reach agreement on the long-term trajectory of grid growth and cost allocation. I'm looking forward to see that the compliance process has begun and working with my colleagues to implement those reforms.

The Commission also has prominent role in siting hydroelectric and natural gas infrastructure, and we are looking for efficiencies that will facilitate the permitting of next generation of energy projects. We can gain most efficiencies by ensuring that the roles and responsibilities are clear from the outset and that our decisions are legally durable and account for people who live near the projects. Making the appropriate process changes can improve access to energy, which in turn improve energy affordability and reliability. I hope that the Commission can continue to be good partners to states, and regional entities in this effort. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm happy to answer questions as we get to them. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll turn now to Mr. Lassard, who comes to us with a distinguished career, 20 years in public service at both the state and federal level, and also from service in the Marine Corps. So, Mr. Lassard, your remarks, please.

Thank you, Senator Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, distinguished members of the committee. It's good to be back before you again. I know it's been a few short months since I was last here. I was beginning to wonder whether you missed me or not, so it's good to be back. It's my honor to serve the American people by implementing the Commission's statutory mandate to ensure just and reasonable rates for the Commission's reliability for reliable electricity, to cite natural gas pipeline infrastructure and liquefied natural gas facilities, and license non-federal hydropower facilities.

I'm also thankful that the Senate confirmed my appointment to serve on the Commission for a subsequent 5-year term. I'd like to speak on a few of our accomplishments since I joined the Commission and address my priorities going forward. I will also discuss where I believe Congress should effectuate important reforms so that the American public can benefit from the world-class infrastructure that they deserve. I'll repeat my Commissioner's sentiments on the June open meeting where the Commission took bold action, where we issued 6 show cause orders, one to each of the RTOs and ISOs within the Commission's jurisdiction. The orders direct these groups where the majority of Americans reside to either show cause why their current tariffs do not need to be reformed or to file reforms to ensure that large loads, such as data centers, can connect to the transmission system in a swift manner.

Importantly, the show cause orders direct the grid operators to ensure that such reforms insulate customers from undue costs stemming from the interconnection of data centers. As I have told this body numerous times, my pledge to the American people is to keep consumer costs top of mind, and I will do so as I continue to review the responses to the show cause orders. This Commission also continues to permit projects and issue such authorizations in a timely and legally durable manner. At a time when energy demand is rising and reliability challenges, challenges are mounting, the Commission has acted with efficiency and urgency. Year to date, the Commission has already issued 15% more orders over the same time period 2025.

Since I've joined the Commission, we voted in over 720 proceedings, and the Commission has authorized the addition of approximately 13.42 million decaTherms per day of natural gas transportation capacity, enough fuel to support the electricity needs of over 60 million American households. But how much energy is that? It's enough to power every household in all states represented by the 20 Committee members in this body, plus an additional 20 million Americans. The Commission has also certified roughly 980,000 decatherms per day of storage deliverability, which provides a critical safety net for the nation's natural gas supply that can help balance seasonal spikes, mitigate price volatility, and ensure reliability. As Commissioner, I will continue my steadfast focus on removing distractions and extrajurisdictional side quests in strict alignment with our statutory authorities granted to us by Congress to ensure the Commission continues to expeditiously review all matters before us under the FPA and the NGA.

One such example relates to how the Commission performs its statutory responsibilities under NEPA. Frankly, state and federal reviews have bogged down investments in infrastructure to the detriment of our nation, our economy, and our environment. We are looking at ways to streamline our internal process to better align obligations under NEPA with the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County. As I've said in last month's open meeting, we'll begin implementing changes to the way we evaluate projects against their environmental backdrop as appropriate, and in such a way as to ensure the analysis actually informs the Commission's evaluation of the project at hand, rather than wading into the never-ending quicksand of inquiries about where to draw the NEPA line. We will fulfill the requirements under NEPA, but in a way that is consistent with the NEPA's textual focus on the proposed action, as outlined by a unanimous Supreme Court in Seven County.

As you've heard me say before, affordability and reliability are my top commitments, and this load growth must not come at the expense of ordinary Americans who are already concerned about their energy bills. Although the Commission can take significant action to help ensure America is positioned to win the challenges of the century, we need help from Congress. And as I said before, permitting statutes must be designed to ensure responsible infrastructure development and not stymieing it. I'm of the opinion that durable permitting reform must be enacted in the 119th Congress. My view has been reinforced as a Commissioner, where I have witnessed firsthand how difficult it is for companies to invest in our infrastructure.

I continue to approach the responsibility of commissioner with diligence, independence, and a clear understanding of whom I serve— the American people. It is a profound honor to serve on this commission. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and the rest of the distinguished members of the committee, um, for bringing us together today to discuss these important issues in oversight. The only way we win, the only way the American people win, is by coming together to craft solutions to these problems before us. And I look forward to answering your questions.

Thanks so much, Commissioner Lissert. I apologize, I had to step out briefly.

When you first start to watch proceedings in the Senate, they can look chaotic, and then when you watch them more, they can look even more chaotic. Sometimes we have multiple committees going on at once, multiple committees voting at the same time. Rigid quorum requirements can be unforgiving, so that's why we sometimes have to bounce in and out. We'll now begin our 5-minute rounds of questions, alternating between Republicans and Democrats in order of seniority, subject to the early bird rule. And I'll begin.

Ms.— Commissioner Swett— Chairman Swett, I'd like to begin with you, if that's okay. Last month, FERC took bold action to address issues related to the interconnection of data centers to the grid. Now, your orders were designed to ensure that each region will be able to take its own approach to prevent data centers from raising costs to regular consumers. The orders also seek to modernize the electricity sector, which has operated under the same regulatory paradigm for many decades, even as technology has changed, even when population centers and electricity demand patterns have evolved significantly. Can you explain how, how you intend to use these orders to help modernize electricity markets and usher in a new era of innovation in the electricity sector?

Thank you for the question, Senator. Modernizing and innovation were absolutely the goal of those orders, so I'm very pleased that that has come through. So it's very clear to me after my decade and a half of litigating FERC law that utilities and markets do not want to change, with the exception of a few of them. And it requires aggressive instruction for them to innovate. And so these June orders were the perfect vehicle for us to employ the market experts, the markets themselves, in order to push the grid into the future.

And so we are accomplishing that through some main tenets here, which is first, We have directed fast-on-type timeline modernization of transmission services and also the study processes that our jurisdictional markets employ. Uh, this will save our consumers a lot of money, and with our instructions, they are now in the markets forced to consider advanced transmission technologies in their study processes and also to study load that may appear near generation, which will reduce the amount of transmission build that is necessary to get the load online. These are all innovations that are not necessarily considered across the country. Some markets have proposed some type of them, but now we are really prompting them on a shot clock to do it. And the third component was that we are forcing more accountability to solve the generation issue.

Now, you well know that FERC has no jurisdiction over generation, but because we have directed each market to come back to us with reporting on what they intend to do, how to handle this generation cliff that we are standing on as a nation, that is forcing thought and hopefully action. And together, these tight timelines and instructions should bring our grid to the future. Right. Based on the, the interconnectedness, so to speak, of the, of generation and transmission. And yeah, that makes sense.

Commissioner Ching, um, FERC Order 1000 was issued by the Commission back in 2011. Its goal was to usher in more competition in the electric power sector, particularly by identifying regional transmission upgrades that could be made and ensuring that those selected projects were awarded through a competitive process. A decade and a half later, The FERC Order 1000 has not yet fully materialized. What else do you think the Commission can do to bring more competitive pressure into the electricity sector in a way that's likely to improve conditions, including prices and reliability for consumers? And what action can Congress take to be helpful?

Thank you, Chairman, for the question. I think I want to first I would first highlight what you already said, which is the intent of Order 1000 regarding competitive transmission really has not materialized. There are some regions that have definitely spent the last decade or so implementing competitive processes, but to actually bring efficiencies and cost savings to consumers, those processes are really just beginning to bring some benefits to the grid. And I do think that we should find additional efficiencies through competition where it's possible.

And as you probably heard from my opening statement, the backbone transmission system is extremely important in integrating the large loads that we're seeing and the large generation that we're adding to the system. And to bring down the cost to all consumers require competition. And I hope that Order 1000 and the original goals of Order 1000 could be materialized in the future. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner LaSarte, I think it's fair to say that natural gas is is a key element. Some might say backbone, others might say cornerstone or keystone of, of a reliable, affordable electric power grid. And this Commission has been moving quickly to help get needed infrastructure approved, you know, based on this understanding. Would you walk the Committee through FERC's recent accomplishments on natural gas, the certificates and the capacity you've approved the steps you've taken to speed up reviews and what that might mean for consumers, particularly as they get their energy bills. Absolutely, Chairman.

So first, you can take a look at how we survived the recent winter storms and the performance of natural gas compared to other energy sources. And it's really easy to see the way of the future, how we power the country through the future is with natural gas. And the economists at FERC have been consistent and clear that with additional supplies of plentiful and abundant natural gas that will help drive prices lower. It's simple economics. You know, you're going to increase the supply, you're going to increase the opportunities for consumers to utilize it.

And especially in the municipally owned utility space. You know, some of these municipal governments are captive by one single pipeline, which they get their rates from. If we can increase competition for natural gas, especially amongst the municipally owned utilities, I think you're going to see prices go down. I think you're going to see investments in our infrastructure. You're going to see re-onshoring of industry.

You're going to see data centers grow, which is of vital importance to our country. But we're going to do it in a responsible way that protects the consumers. And we're doing that right now in a bipartisan way with all 5 commissioners. Thank you. Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. I was pleased to hear Commissioner See Commissioner Chang and Chairwoman Sweat all mention advanced transmission technologies. And we all know that there haven't always been the built-in economic incentives to put some of those things onto the grid, despite the fact that they can all often have very outsized and efficient impacts on how we utilize the existing grid in a way that doesn't require enormous economic upgrades. So I wanted to ask if you wanted to add anything to that conversation, and also what would be helpful from Congress in terms of congressional action to reinforce a posture of incentivizing these, these technologies? Commissioner See, do you want to jump on that first?

You were the first to mention it, so—. Happy to, Senator Heinrich. I think when we look at our reliability and affordability challenges, it's certainly necessary that we need to build new infrastructure, and that's expensive. So nobody's denying that. But there's also a really important moment for us to make the most out of the existing infrastructure, and that's when AT&T gets these technologies can can be incredibly helpful.

They're not always the best solution, but they are, and they can give significant speed and cost savings to customers. So I was really grateful that my colleagues and I were able to come together and include more language about that in the 206 orders we talked about, to make sure that utilities take a hard look at these options when they're considering transmission upgrades. In terms of what more can be done, you know, FERC has limited authorities in this area, so we can encourage, we can incentivize, advise. But if Congress— if this is an issue Congress wants to take up and give FERC more clarity and authorities, I would love to see us to be able to run in this direction because I think it can be so helpful for both reliability and affordability. Very helpful.

To either of the two— Chair Warren. Thank you for the question, Senator. I fully agree with you and Commissioner C on this one. We're looking at GETS from every angle, and we recently had a software conference where I had a panel added to have panelists specifically who have experience implementing GETS in their utilities and their markets to see how that's playing out, the economics associated with it, and I think it's getting a lot of traction. The biggest barrier, to answer your question on a final point, the Federal Power Act prohibits FERC explicitly from mandating building of any particular transmission facility except for the backstop siting authority.

And it is my personal opinion as a lawyer that GETs fall under that category. So until Congress changes that prohibition, FERC's not really able to instruct anything more aggressively. But you can force the analysis, which can then show the most efficient economic path. And we have required that type of analysis in our June order. I think that's been very helpful.

Commissioner Chang. Great. Thank you very much, Senator, for that question. I too support the use of advanced transmission technology. More than support, I think it's time that we take pilot projects and the industry takes pilot projects and really implement the most advanced technologies to save consumers money.

Again, if the U.S. wants to be a leader in technology, this I think this is another set of technology that we can lead in the industry. When it comes to— certainly, I think if Congress wants to work on this, we would be very happy to implement any particular changes. Under the current authority, when transmission owners and developers come to FERC and request for incentives, I think there are— there is some room for FERC to ask ask the transmission owners and developers to demonstrate to and illustrate or to explain what technologies they're implementing and what else they have considered and why they are not adopting the best technologies available. Great. No, I appreciate that.

According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, at the end of 2025, there were more than 8,200 proposed power plants trying to connect to the grid. But only 13% of the capacity that has attempted to get on the grid between 2000 and 2020 has actually reached commercial operation. And I recently introduced the Grid Connection Congestion Management Act, which would allow generators to interconnect even faster to the grid. But I want to ask you, Commissioner Rosner, what steps beyond Order 2023 should FERC take to further improve generator interconnection processes? And in particular, do you want to speak, uh, you mentioned automation and AI tools, and I, I think that's a space that, that we're just beginning to see the potential of.

And so if you can touch on that, I would appreciate it. Thank you for the question, Senator Heinrich. And, and yes, I, I think it's obvious to me that there's a huge opportunity to be smarter about how we run our interconnection processes. The Texas model is one example. Implementing automation on our current queue cluster study process is another example.

In the SBP region, we had a proposal from them that they brought to us with unanimous support from their states that reimagined how to do both generator interconnection and transmission planning together. And the— but back on automation, there's a huge opportunity there in MISO their old way with pen and paper and engineers doing the power flow studies, it took them 686 days to process their 2021 cluster, over 100 gigawatts of generation. Using automation, the new way, less than 10 days. And there's open public benchmarking on how well this worked. It was very, very close and continues to get better.

And from my perspective, you know, this is all about Let's give applicants, people who want to connect new power plants to the grid, let's give them the answer on whether it makes sense to connect to the grid in that location or not. And also, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't already say, you know, appreciate your leadership on transmission, regional, interregional. None of these interconnection queue reforms work if there isn't a grid to plug the power plant into. And we can talk more about some examples of how that hasn't worked so well recently, and that's a huge problem. Thank you.

Senator Perazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, other members. What I want to talk about is the Seminole Pump Storage Project, which is in the state of Wyoming. On June 12th, FERC staff issued their recommended final environmental impact statement for the Seminole Pump Storage Project. This is a private project, and it would create water pump storage infrastructure above Seminole Reservoir, which is in central Wyoming.

Functionally, the project works as a battery with about capacity of efficiency of about 70%. It uses power to pump water into storage, and then it sells the power at a profit when the grid needs electricity. Wyoming constituents that I've heard from have concerns. They worry that the project harms the only disease-free bighorn sheep herd in the state and critical mule deer, pronghorn, and sage grouse habitat. They also worry that it harms one of the most legendary trout fisheries in Wyoming, in the world.

It's known as the Miracle Mile, but it's over 5 miles. It's a stretch of the North Platte River between the Seminoe Reservoir and the Pathfinder Reservoir. This is an area that must be protected. The project received its water quality permit from the state. There are concerns about wildlife that haven't yet been resolved in the recommended environmental impact statement.

The state submitted comments on the project, which, um, I have here, and, um, Mr. Chairman would like to enter these into the hearing record without objection. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, it's critically important that Wyoming's concerns are thoughtfully and carefully considered in this process. So, Madam Chairman, I would ask you and others if you would commit to taking a renewed look at the state's comments and consider their incorporation into your final decision?

Thank you for the question, Senator. I know these types of projects have great impact on community. They're very emotional for both sides, and I am fully committed to making a measured decision based on the record and working with your staff to arrive at the right choice for the American people. Thank you. Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

Perhaps I could just add, Senator, um, thank you for your question, that hydropower is an extremely valuable resource, uh, including the Seminole Project, and I too will commit to making sure that the state's comments are considered in the record. Great. Madam Chairman, for you and then anyone else, Western electricity markets, they're evolving rapidly, as you all know. This comes from the implementation of a new day-ahead market. It comes from the new regional organization for Western Energy and Southwest Power Pool's expansion to the west.

The goal is unified and coordinated electricity transmission. While participation in this new model can be a good thing, states like Wyoming need a meaningful voice in governance. Wyoming is a number one electricity exporter in the Western Interconnection. We have the highest net exports of energy per capita. That makes us Wyoming, the backbone of the grid.

So what steps are FERC planning to take to ensure meaningful state participation as the extended day-ahead market and western energy imbalance markets evolve? Thank you for the question, Senator. As a core principle in my leadership, I take our country's system of federalism very seriously, and state voices must be heard. And I think I've shown that I really do care about to the states through our 206 orders in June, where we carved out specific transparency to give our state counterparts the tools that they need to ensure that the markets work correctly. And that commitment that I've made to— in those orders, I commit to you as well in the other parts of the country that are not covered by them, and particularly when it comes to the West.

We are watching very closely as those markets evolve. We've ordered the SBP and CAISO to come back to us with a report on how the SEAM is going to work and what issues they see arising so that we can all land this ship together. And the states are certainly a huge part of that, so I commit to taking their concerns very seriously. Anyone else want to respond on that? Yes, Senator, I just wanted to echo the Chairman's sentiments on this and also recognize that many Western states reached out last week after our order to require SBP and CAISO to work together and report back to us on these SIEMS issues.

I think that was viewed very favorably by all the states. Some of them specifically mentioned it to us, and I'm full lockstep with the Chairman and the rest of the Commissioners. Great. I'll just add to that that we strongly respect state autonomy when it comes to choice about what markets to join or not to join, but once those are formed, we take seriously our responsibility as well to ensure just and reasonable rates and a fully effective market. —Important part of that who is who has a voice in the market and in those decisions.

So yes, I take the state voice very seriously. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. We will go next to Senator King.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank you for modeling how government is supposed to work. This commission has worked together very effectively without reference to partisan interests. The 6 orders that you issued in June I think were, again, a model of prudent regulation and exercising of the powers that you have under the Federal Power Act. So thank you.

It's not often that you get that kind of— I just wanted to share that.

We've been— a lot of talk about GATS, and I always show what GATS really is all about. This is a typical high-tension transmission piece of wire, and this is a carbon fiber-based transmission wire. This one carries twice the power that this one does. So you can replace your conductor without new poles, without new right-of-way, without a lot of new civil works, and double the capacity. So that's really what we're talking about here.

And Chairman— Chair Swett, I took a little issue with you. I understand that you can't mandate a technology, but your responsibility is just and reasonable rates. And it seems to me if the transmission folks are taking actions that don't make economic sense and will penalize their ratepayers, That does give you a hook to look more carefully at how they actually do it. Now, having said all that, I think one of the things that you could be very helpful to us is how do we incentivize these kinds of decisions, because right now the incentive on the transmission developer is to invest. They make a rate of return on the amount of money, the capital that they put in.

That's an incentive to gold plate. That's an incentive to build more than you really need to build, and it's a disincentive to do something something like this. So I think one of the things we need to look at is how do we provide shared savings, for example, or some kind of incentive to the companies to make these kinds of investments, because the cost of the grid enhancement is going up in a huge way over the next several years. It's gone from about 30% of electric bills to 40% or 50% today, and this cost is going to be overwhelming in the next 5 or 10 years if we don't do it in a smart way. So, Chair Sweat, I commend you for what you're doing, but I hope that you'll think about how the incentives and also a little more leeway on just and reasonable rates.

Thank you, Senator. I am absolutely thinking about that. In fact, I've convened a task force in the commission of some of our best thinkers to to think about the GETS issue and how we can encourage it further, including potential incentives, which have to be landed squarely to show that they will result in cost savings to American ratepayers. So we have a lot of utilities across the country who have proactively started employing GETS, and now we have some of the data from the cost savings that those specific technologies are able to produce for the— those utilities and their customers. So FERC staff is actually working with those, trying to understand their real-life results and trying to figure out if there is a way that we can incentivize the increased use of GETs and ATTs outside even of our June orders for filings for utilities who can come in and actually show how much cost savings the technologies that they're looking at can bring to their consumers.

So that is definitely a path forward that we are open to and actively pursuing. And I think the other thing I hope that you'll pursue, and Commissioner Rosner, you mentioned this, is the encouragement of the use of— we're talking, we're saying automation, but it's really AI— in resolving the backlogs in the queue, because that's a huge problem. And I think, restate the numbers that you gave from the number of days down to 10 days. It was quite remarkable. In MISO, which is in the Midwest, it was their old way, 686 days, the new way, less than 10 days.

I mean, that speaks for itself. So I hope, again, you'll figure out ways to incentivize that kind of activity. And one way to do it is to say, look, if you do it the old way, you're not imposing just and reasonable rates on your ratepayers. I mean, that's one of your basic responsibilities. I just wanna say a quick word about permitting reform.

I've been involved in all the permitting reform discussions here. I'm a former developer. I get it. I understand the problems with permitting, but permitting reform for me has to involve an even-handed process throughout. And one of the problems we have right now is we could have all the permitting reform in the world, but this administration has its thumb on the scale of renewables.

So there's no point in having It would be like two racers going along and one has a clear 100-yard dash and the other has a hurdle at the end. And that's what's happening now. The Secretary of the Interior has, I don't know, 100 projects, wind and solar, sitting on his desk. The Army clearing— the military clearinghouse on wind projects has, I think, 185 projects that have just been arbitrarily stopped without any rationale, without any explanation. So I'm all for permitting reform, but not if it ends up as a practical matter only reforming the permitting for fossil fuels and the opportunity for renewables, which by the way are the cheapest and fastest to market of any energy source today.

Unless the playing field is level, count me out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much, Senator King. We'll turn next to Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Uh, we are at a critical juncture for powering our country, and the investments we now make will determine whether America's manufacturing and technology future is built here or somewhere else.

Right now, demand for electricity is growing faster than at any point in decades, and supply, as we've established is not keeping pace. Two forces are driving this demand. First is the AI revolution that's changing the way we work, operate, creating new jobs and opportunities. And companies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States instead of overseas. That's really great news for America, but only if we have the power to run these operations that come with each of them.

While states like Maryland and New York are shutting down baseload generation, I'm proud to report that Pennsylvania remains a net energy exporter. We're the third— the nation's third largest electricity producer. Uh, Pennsylvania's powering manufacturing, the AI revolution, and, uh, our nation's defense capabilities all at once. However, we must do more, and a brief look at the scale of this challenge shows us that for nearly 20 years, power demand was flat at nearly half a percent growth annually. From 2026— 2020 to 2026, we saw electricity demand increase, growing by an average of 1.7% per year.

By 2030, our electricity demand could jump 20%. Think about that. In 10 years, we've gone from half a percent growth to 20%, and our supply is nowhere close to keeping up. Earlier this month, Bank of America reported that the U.S. could face an electricity generation shortfall of 100 gigawatts between 2026 and 2030. Closer to home, this all comes to rest in Pennsylvania at the PJM Interconnection, which serves my home state of Pennsylvania.

Their most recent auction came up short below their reserve margin targets. I applaud FERC for the work it's doing to advance President Trump's agenda to power the great American comeback, but we need to do more. The demand is coming with advanced manufacturing, AI pulling it forward quickly, and we need to get more electrons on the grid, which leads me to really questions focused on PJM. And I'll start with the chairwoman. Tomorrow, FERC will convene a conference to discuss ways to improve PJM's governance and stakeholder processes, including their ability to address market needs in a timely and efficient manner.

Could you elaborate on why this conference is needed and some of the governance and stakeholder challenges that FERC and PJM hope to address? It's my favorite topic. Good, mine too. Thank you for the question, Senator. Well, I don't need to tell you that PJM powers the homes of 67 million Americans, and as the largest and oldest market in the country, it is probably performing the worst, and I am very concerned.

That is why we are convening this tech conference tomorrow, and it's not necessarily PJM's fault. We don't want to point fingers. A lot of the reason for the tech conference tomorrow is because I am a litigator. I want a record on, one, what the problems are, and two, what the solutions are. So we have instructed the people who we have handpicked and chosen all of our panelists tomorrow based on what they will bring to the table for solutions.

And that is at every level. It's the federal level, the state level, the utilities, transmission owners, hyperscalers, all types of market participants. And we are optimistic that people will be able to coalesce around identifying what should change in the market by the end of tomorrow and the comments filed after so that we can give clear direction. And success to me looks like a PJM in the near future that is able to propose solutions quickly with some type of member support that is clear and to make those filings and excellent filings at FERC so that we can move expediently to have this market serve the country efficiently. Very good.

Thank you. And I'll— just as a follow-up to that, and I'll turn to you, Mr. Rosner, one of the concerns we have as an exporter within PJM— Pennsylvania's an exporter— that decisions made within PJM increasingly have enormous consequences for ratepayers, and we want to ensure that no single state, no individual state, can distort distort the regional market in a way that disadvantages Pennsylvania's consumers and ratepayers. Can you comment on how FERC might play a role in ensuring that doesn't happen? Well, thank you for the question, Senator, and agree with your focus on PJM and looking forward to the conference tomorrow. And, you know, I'll just say a few things.

First of all, making sure that all customers across PJM are treated fairly, and that they pay for the power that they receive in a way that's transparent and that's consistent with our cost causation rules. Like, that's what will— that's one of my goals, and that's how we'll review future proposals from PJM. The other thing I would just say is, you know, I think it's very good and it's the appropriate time to have this conversation about governance of PJM, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that it does save consumers billions every year in terms of efficient operating— operation of the whole grid and efficient planning of the transmission system. But also, none of that works if you don't have buy-in from states. And so one of my priorities throughout the commission's work is that we set the market rules, and, and that results in price signals to invest.

But none of that goes anywhere if the states don't believe in the, in the, in the way that that price was derived. On the transmission side of the coin, we set the rules about how you plan the grid. And one of the things that I push for in Order Number 1920 was let's have the states come to the table and agree on the scenarios, the way we plan that transmission, the way the cost of that transmission is paid for. It, it, it, It seems like common sense to me that states and their utilities should agree on this. And that's where I've pushed to make FERC regulations, you know, involve the states more, because ultimately we depend on the states to give the permits to build power plants, transmission lines, to do all those things.

And we've talked a lot about grid efficiency and GETS and advanced transmission technologies. Not only is that gonna save people money, but also when we do need to build something, Americans, consumers, they're smart. They want to know that you really needed that wire before you put a new wire in. And those, those wires or pipelines or whatever it is, power plants, they have big impacts. And so we, we need to show people and be transparent that we tried everything we could.

We got every last ounce of efficiency out of the grid before we did something. Very good. Thank you. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to Thank you for being here. I want to talk about the growing hydro demand. And your own data shows increased demand for hydro licensing activities in the next decade, right? With more than 40% of the non-federal hydropower fleet due to be relicensed, I think by 2035. For that reason, Senator Daines and I, actually working together, introduced S. 3500, which is the Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act, and it requires annual FERC reports to Congress on pending projects and action plans.

But I know last year FERC sought public feedback, right, on methods to streamline its review of hydropower facilities, and I was wondering, maybe Commissioner Sy, can you give us a report on that and maybe, maybe up to date where, where you are with that particular— I'm happy to, Senator Cortez Masto. I agree with you, those statistics about the amount of work coming in is sobering, and in order to keep this critical resource online in so many parts of the country. So we take that seriously and, and really welcome your leadership and others in Congress for accountability from us and ways we can continue to streamline the process. We're hard at work at that too. As you're well aware, our review when it comes to hydro is very expansive, considering a huge range of factors, and we need to do that job well.

But I believe that the best kind of permitting is transparent and efficient and legally durable. So part of what we're in the process on right now is we asked for comment about ways that we can learn from lessons in permitting streamlining in the natural gas context, and how potentially can we apply a blanket program into the hydro area. That's still ongoing, so I can't talk about you know, where we're ultimately going to go. But, but I can tell you that that's something that's top of mind for us, is to figure out are there types of routine projects or changes or amendments that do not need a, a full case-specific review and can have a more streamlined process that still complies with our statutory responsibilities. That's a program that's been really effective for decades on the natural gas side.

Of course, the statutes are different and the interests are different, but we have decades of experience within the commission that we're we're really leveraging to figure out how do we take those lessons and bring it to streamlining in this important part. And so will the public have meaningful input in this process as we are looking at hydroelectric? Absolutely. In the blanket— so we have already, um, we've already sought comment in the initial processes there, and as the commission moves forward, you know, on next steps, there would also be a public comment process to make sure that we are considering all that. And can you give us just a broad timeline when we will have some sort of I can't speak to internal timeframe within the Commission.

We're still working on that. What I can tell you is it's something that we are— it is top of mind for us. I know I talk about it all of the time when we have our regular updates with other offices and across the agency. Thank you. I also want to commend you on the work that you're doing to address and combat market manipulation fraud.

I thank you for that. Collective work. I understand, um, and we, you know, and I think it was mentioned in the opening that in April, FERC issued a penalty order in its enforcement action against American Efficient after uncovering what FERC described as one of the largest and most brazen fraud schemes in its history. And I thank you for that. I'm curious, and maybe Chairman Swett, if you could speak to other efforts to combat market manipulation And also know that to assist in your enforcement efforts, Senator Cantwell and I introduced legislation.

We both were very concerned in the past, coming from the state of Nevada, about market manipulation that we have seen in the past. And it's— we reintroduced it. It's the Energy Consumer Protection Act. Gives FERC the authority to ban or limit traders who are found to repeatedly manipulate electricity and natural gas markets. Markets.

But if you could talk a little bit about your focus in this space. Thank you for the question, Senator. Um, I was an enforcement prosecutor at FERC, and as a baby lawyer who grew up in FERC's enforcement office, I— they have a fond place in my heart. I know how diligent the staff works, how passionate they are, and I share that passion. When we're facing increasing energy bills in this country, there is absolutely no room for fraud.

There was not before, but now every single penny matters, and I take the enforcement program very seriously. I am very supportive of it. I was extremely proud to issue the biggest penalty in FERC history under my tenure to American Efficient, and that is a signal that that type of market manipulation and activity will not be countenanced by this Commission under my leadership. We are looking at the our enforcement program with fresh eyes to look at what type of training may be helpful for them. As someone who has worked in private practice, I have had a lot of litigation training, and I'm very aware of how training can improve the quality of work.

And my goal for our enforcement program is excellence. I have very high standards for the cases that we bring and the rigor with which the staff defends them. So I'm very personally involved in their activity. I know my time is up. It's at some point in time.

I would like to— and maybe we'll submit this for the record— I'm concerned about staffing, brain drain, loss of staff, whether it's DOJ or other thing issues causing it. Would like to hear, um, so we're going to submit that for the record as well, where we can help in Congress to address this issue if it is an issue. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Hyde-Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today, and, uh, being so committed and dedicated. I certainly appreciate that. We talk a lot about affordability, and in your testimonies and your written statements, you know, it was one of the top priorities. And this administration and this Commission, you continue to take action to be so conscious of that, that ratepayers aren't burdened by the higher cost.

And Mississippi, my home state, FERC continues to be at the forefront of safeguarding ratepayers by ensuring companies like data centers pay their fair share for large loads. So I want to talk about the large load rates. And states are passing legislation that these companies have to pay upfront anticipated additional cost because they're just preparing themselves for that. But what mechanisms is FERC implementing specifically for large load customers to pay upfront payments and commitments to maintain minimum financial contributions to keep the rates from rising? And anybody that wants to take that, or all of you can take that.

Thank you for the question, Senator. I'll take the first crack. So our approach to that issue, which is squarely in front of us for this country and also raised by the President in his Ratepayer Protection Pledge, is a twofold approach. We are casting a wide net across the country, which we've all talked about in our June orders. I'm happy to get into that in more detail if you'd like.

But before I do that, we are also looking at the minutia. We have agreements filed with us across the country from various utilities and large load arrangements on almost a daily basis. With their proposing deals and interconnection arrangements that implicate hundreds of millions of dollars. And we look at those arrangements with a fine-tooth comb to ensure that the upgrades that are required by large load is not shouldered by consumers. So we look at it on a case-by-case basis and also across the markets.

Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith, for the question. Yeah, I'll elaborate a little bit on the orders to show cause, and I'll just say what's in the orders because they are pending in front of the Commission. We're attacking this problem with a couple different prongs. First of all, we're requiring contracts. And one of the things I like to say is, like, fundamentally, this problem is a math problem.

It's an accounting problem. It's not a glamorous problem to solve. It's kind of like, let's figure out how much Infrastructure we built for you, and then let's make sure that gets on your bill. And we were requiring contracts to make sure that we don't have stranded costs if you leave early. We're requiring contracts that if we have to build a lot of infrastructure up front and the project isn't energized, that we have a way to bill the project for that cost and it doesn't go to other consumers.

We've talked a lot about advanced transmission technologies and GETS. We have a strong requirement in, in our orders to show cause. It actually goes further than any commission order on consideration of GETS, and it does that by not just asking the utilities to consider an alternative to spend, but also use a study, use a power flow study that can actually model the advanced transmission technology and provide a public report on why you couldn't do it if you can't do it. And then we also have some transparency because you mentioned Mississippi. I've met with the folks from, from Entergy, with their team there, and heard about the work that they're doing at the state level.

What we've heard from state commissioners is when your interstate transmission projects show up at our commission, we don't always know what was spent for who. And so when our rules We're asking people to, if you build a network upgrade to serve a large load, you gotta make that public and let the state commission know so that they can then use their large load tariff and charge it to the right customer. And so none of this is perfect, but it's a big step in the right direction. And we're gonna get some public comment and some iteration on it. And we're gonna keep working with our state colleagues to get this right.

Because fundamentally, this is basic math. It's addition and subtraction. But I really believe we can, we can do this. So is the state legislation necessary with your contracts? The— ultimately, under the Federal Power Act, the responsibilities for the commission, uh, are separate from those from the state commission.

So the state commissions, they're responsible for giving the bills to the end-use customers, whether it's, you know, a small business, a home, or a data center. We're not responsible for that. We give the bills to the transmission system customer which tends to be like an Entergy in Mississippi. And so we need to work with the states. And frankly, I don't think the country has appreciated that 30 states, more than 30 states, actually have these rules either under development or in place.

And again, they're not perfect. We're learning a lot as we go, but that's all well and good. And so I'm optimistic that we can make progress to protect regular ratepayers. Thank you so much, and my time is up.

Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Commissioners for coming to testify today. I believe that each of you testified that energy affordability, the cost to consumers, is a major priority for all of you.

Now, when this regime puts its thumb on the scale scale in favor of fossil fuels, not so much for renewables. I think that is not keeping consumer costs uppermost in mind, which I believe it should. For the chair— chairwoman, in May, a company called Longboard started the pre-filing process with FERC for an offshore natural gas import terminal and pipeline in Hawaii. This is really the first time that the state of Hawaiʻi, any entity in Hawaiʻi, is engaging with FERC because up to now you have had little to none jurisdiction over the energy market in Hawaiʻi. So the terminal would fuel a gas-fired power plant.

The parent company, JERA, is also proposing to build. And the parent company, as I mentioned, JERA, has indicated to the Hawaiʻi Public Utilities Commission its interest in being a regulated generation utility in the state. When FERC evaluates the economic need for the offshore facilities, will FERC consider whether Hawaii should have two public utilities providing energy to the people of Hawaii? Thank you for the question, Senator, and I, I do love Hawaii. I've spent some time there.

Yes, I commit I can tell you that any application that comes before us, including this one, we have to do an analysis in order to authorize an application that involves natural gas to look at the public need for that project. And that includes a very rigorous economic analysis that would also include the factors that you've mentioned. What other factors would you take into consideration as you deal with the Longboard's application to FERC? So there are, uh, requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, and the Natural Gas Act that say what type of analysis FERC has to go through in order to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity. So comments that are raised on the record, and also typically there will be a whole list of environmental factors and economic factors, and I'm happy to have, uh, FERC staff work with your staff to help you understand that process better since this is the first time.

So just so I understand, the, the FERC would consider environmental factors in its decision on, on Longboard's application? We do have to examine the impact on the environment of a project, and those are the direct impacts of a project on the local environment. And there, there is a, a very set way in which we go about looking at that. Didn't the Supreme Court's decision limit FERC's consideration of downstream factors, such as, I would assume, the environmental factors? We no longer look at the downstream impacts of a project.

However, we do look at the direct impact of a project. That is still required under law, and we take that very seriously, and that would involve the direct impact upon the community. How important is it to you that the applicant engages the community in its project. In other words, to get input from the community, is that something that the FERC would require of the applicant? Well, FERC actually has an Office of Public Participation, which is statutorily required by Congress.

We help engage communities, and in my experience generally, just stepping out of my chairman role, I find that infrastructure projects that do engage communities have greater success if they're able to educate and work with the community and understand their concerns. So one of the concerns now is that the— how much these data centers, and maybe this is something that Commissioner Chang can respond to because I believe you talked about it, but the use of energy by these data centers and what is FERC doing to make sure that the cost of these data centers, the they do not fall unfairly upon ratepayers. Thank you, thank you for that question, Senator. Um, as part of our 206, um, that we discussed here repeatedly, is a component with cost shift, looking at the potential cost shift and therefore allocating the proper costs associated with network upgrades. So the combination of our 206 and the components of about cost shifting or limiting cost shifting, as well as transparency of the cost that's triggered by data centers or other large loads as they connect to the grid, I think we are poised to address the issue of cost shifting when it comes to network upgrades.

Yeah, I think that the, the cost shifting is a definite problem. In fact, some jurisdictions are passing legislation to prevent data centers from even being built in their locations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Senator Daines. Chairman Lee, thank you, as well as Ranking Member Heinrich. Commissioners, good to have you all here today, all 5 in one place. It's a great sight to see this today.

There's one source of energy that has bipartisan cooperation, support is hydropower. Uh, it's a renewable source of energy. It's great baseload power. It's low cost. And this week I introduced the Hydropower Licensing Affordability Act with Senators Risch and Murkowski.

This bill makes a small but very important change to the Federal Power Act because right now resource agencies can put mandatory conditions in hydropower licenses. While FERC is the agency that grants the permits for non-federal hydropower projects, resource agencies like the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service can set mandatory conditions on a license that FERC, you all, issue. This can also happen during a relicensing of an existing project. Unfortunately, this process can be abused. Resource agencies can end up on a wish list of projects that have no direct connection to a hydropower dam.

This bill is very simple. It requires all conditions to be directly related to a project. This just makes sense. In fact, this week I sent a letter to FERC, the Department of Interior, the Department of Ag, and the Department of Commerce asking them to initiate a rulemaking to address hydropower licensing, including mandatory conditions. I'm going to send— sound like Chairman Lee now.

Under Section 4 and Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. That's my best impression of Mike Lee I can do right there. For each of you, with 40% of the nation's hydropower fleet being up for relicensing, 40% in the next 4 years, do you agree that we need to streamline and look for ways to simplify the hydropower licensing and relicensing process at a time when we are constrained brain as we look forward here. Just like to hear from each of you. Do you think we need to simplify and streamline it?

Yes.

Absolutely. Let's go a little left to right here. Yeah. Yes. Thank you.

Yes. You know my answer, Senator. Yes. Okay, nobody said heck yes or more than that, but good. I'm glad to hear yes.

Um, now for, uh, the chairman. Chairman Sweat, there are multiple large hydropower projects up for relicensing in Montana, including the Thompson DAM. Will you work closely with resource agencies and push back against indirect or costly mandatory conditions imposed by agencies on existing projects? Thank you, Senator. Yes, we are spending an inordinate amount of time on hydro during this commission right now, more than this commission ever has focused on it, because it is so important, because those licenses are coming up for renewal and I myself am personally actively pushing back on those types of conditions when I become aware of them and they hold our processes up.

Thank you. I mean, this ought to be the easy kind of licensing 101. There's much more difficult and complicated issues in front of us. And thank you for your support to find ways to move this faster at a time we need more hydropower energy. Chairman Swett, in May, President Trump signed my bill.

It was Senate Bill 1020. To extend certain hydropower licenses for an additional 6 years. Could you give me the status of FERC's implementation of that particular law? Yes, thank you, Senator, and I applaud your bill. I think it's a great idea.

Because of the delays that FERC cannot control, that is very helpful. We've received requests for extensions of construction deadlines under your statute, and we are processing them in accordance with the terms of your statute. We have not actually granted any requests under the new law yet, but that is simply a function of timing, and I believe that it is imminent. Chairman Sweat, thank you. I appreciate that update, and thanks for the 5-0 vote, by the way, on streamlining.

I want to move to natural gas for a moment, if I might. Montana recently built a brand new natural gas peaking plant in Laurel, Montana, just outside of Billings, to provide reliable and affordable electricity and maintain stability of the grid. This is the type of project we need to see installed across the United States. Unfortunately, we're seeing long delays for permitting at the federal and even at the state level. I'll keep working on the state level.

You can help me on the federal level. Commissioner LaSarte, how do you see changes proposed by FERC, including updates to the blanket certificate program, helping to expand natural gas electricity production? And leading to lower prices and a more reliable grid? Yeah, that's a great question, Senator. I think the blanket programs, whether it be natural gas, whether it be hydro, I think that they're going to allow us to focus on the hard issues so that the small issues don't have to be litigated before us.

And it matters because time allocation— we have so many things pending before us, and I'm aware of how big of a challenge it's been on the permitting side. So, so it allows us to contract, to focus on our priorities under the Natural Gas Act, to, to focus that time and efforts on our staffing considerations, on passing the, the most impactful projects that we can. No, and it's a big help because, you know, we, we are grateful we have a lot of intermittent source of power as well. We've got big wind projects, we've got big solar projects. As we say in Montana, the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, and have that ability to ramp up and down here with natural gas is a way here to keep grid stability and more affordability.

So thank you for that. Back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Let's see, Senator Gallego, you're up next. Thank you, Chairman Laelian, Ranking Member Heinrich, and thank you to all 5 FERC Commissioners for your participation in this hearing. A lot of FERC's work is closely tied to headline news, data centers, energy prices, reliability, and more. So I appreciate the chance to talk about those things and more today, and I echo the hopes of my fellow my fellow committee members that FERC remains independent and focused on solving the very real issues facing America's energy system.

In conversations at large around permitting reform, one of the most common phrases that we hear is permitting certainty. Commissioner Chang, you and I recently discussed how permitting certainty is vital not only in generation but in delivering energy resources of all types across the country. Can you elaborate on how permitting uncertainty in transmission and delivery of energy translates to higher costs for customers across all of our energy types? Thank you very much for that question, Senator. I'm glad you raised that because recently we approved a proposal from Southwest Power Pool that uses consolidated planning process to provide cost certainty for generators that want to interconnect.

I think this is a very innovative and sort of breaking the tradition approach to make sure that generators who want to interconnect have more information up front so that they can make their decisions about how much they want to interconnect to the grid and how much potential transmission upgrades they might trigger so that they don't find that out later in the process and then have to reassess whether the projects that they're developing would be economically viable. So I do believe a consolidated process between the interconnection process, sort of we understand what generators can interconnect and what cost they might have to pay for upgrades and transmission planning, I think that is an appropriate approach that other regions could probably take an example from. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rosner, in recent remarks, the Commission has expressed support for— of the parallel market development in the West, and last Thursday's meeting you characterized this as a win for consumers. As SPP Markets and CAISO's day-ahead market continue to expand and develop, it's clear that SPP and CAISO must work together to ensure that energy remains reliable and affordable for individuals and businesses in their markets.

FERC recently issued an order directing a joint report from both market operators on this issue and others. So my question is, how does FERC plan to support and require long-term collaboration between SPP and CAISO after this report is filed? Well, thank you, Senator, and I think it's an exciting time for markets, especially in the West. I've been out to visit recently, and, you know, it's a wonderful thing to see And different states make selections on markets that fit their needs. And, you know, the reality, though, is that there are two choices, and that makes the situation more complex.

But the complexity has a downside to it, which is we want to make sure that we can get as many benefits from the efficient dispatch, from efficient use of the existing grid. And what we did at our meeting in July or earlier this month was ask the Regents, come and file the report you just mentioned, consider how you're gonna work together, what sort of formal mechanism could you have in place to minimize those seams? And so it's more complex, but there's an opportunity to minimize that. And one of the things contemplated in that report is, you know, and we've seen this in other parts of the country where The two different grid operators have things like joint operating agreements that sort of lay out, you know, when we get into these situations, here's what we'll do, here's how people get paid, here's how we, you know, work around the different contractual rights that exist on the transmission system. All of those things are places where I see the opportunity for progress out west.

And, you know, I'm very bullish on these markets, on on saving people money, on providing more reliable power. And we already know from looking around the rest of the country where we have markets that these save consumers something like $10 billion a year, if not more. Good. Thank you for the question. Chairman Sweat, as is clear from the breadth of issues discussed at this hearing, we're asking FERC to do a lot of things these days.

All this requires very sufficient, qualified staff at the agency. What steps is FERC taking to ensure employee retention, and will FERC need more staff if Congress passes energy legislation, including permitting reform, which we hope we do? Thank you for the question. As a— my third time as a FERC employee, I take this very seriously. I care very much about the agency and its staff.

I've spent a lot of time personally meeting with every single office and trying to look as many employees in the face as I can. That said, I'm pleased to say that the The administration authorized us to start hiring again, and we have posted— I have the numbers here so I don't get them wrong. We currently have 1,370 full-time employees, and since OPM opened up hiring for us in January, we've hired 74 new employees who are mostly very qualified subject matter experts, and I'm very pleased at this result, and we still have rolling job listings posted throughout the year, and I'm very encouraged that we will continue to staff up. And of course, if Congress gives us more power or more roles, then we will adjust accordingly. Thank you.

You're back. Senator Cotton, um, thank you. I also want to address artificial intelligence and data centers. I get a lot of conversa— hear a lot of conversation from Arkansans about that, um, at various levels. It maybe the highest level you might say, they're, they're very concerned about the threat that China poses.

You know, just in the last week or so, China has released another open-weighted model, and they want to make sure that we maintain our advantage over China. They recognize another level, the, the great potential that artificial intelligence has for scientific breakthroughs, for healthcare and pharmaceutical breakthroughs, maybe to cure cancer or Alzheimer's and other terrible diseases. At a personal level, I think a lot of them are very excited about it. Many of them are using it in their business, whether it's a giant business, whether it's a small mom-and-pop business, or maybe just using it for their day-to-day needs, whether getting a, you know, rehab regimen for an aching knee, you know, comparing pickup trucks they're gonna buy, developing a summer reading plan for a kid to have them ready to go back to school. All very positive, constructive things.

On the other hand, they, they are worried about what it means for their communities to have large data centers in or near them, especially what it might mean for the strain on infrastructure, most notably on electricity, electricity, and what they're going to pay for their power bills, whether the, uh, uh, power is going to be there during terrible winter storms. Summer heat waves.

So, um, Mr. Lassert, let me, let me start with you. If a data center brings and pays for its own generation— so you've got a data center that the hyperscalers are bringing in, they say they're going to build it and they pay for the generation, they pay for the grid upgrades— should ordinary families and businesses also pay for those same facilities? I would assume not. You know, Senator, There's a longstanding tenet at FERC of beneficiary pays, so the person who is reaping the benefit of the new line, the new generation, should be born the cost of that infrastructure upgrades, and we take that seriously. And that means that so the people who are building these centers and using them for all these important purposes, they're willing to put down the money to build their generation Arkansas ratepayers, businesses are not going to be building.

That's a—. This cost either. That's, that's a core tenet of when the president brought the governors from PGM together to agree on, on what the rules of the road are, um, in the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. And I applaud the governors for coming together in a bipartisan manager manner with the president in doing so. Um, and that has been something that's been expanded, that's been something that's been agreed to by all the major hyperscalers, and that these cost in which they're going to incur, they're going to be assigned to.

And it's something that we're going to hold them to. It's a state— it's something that the states need to hold those hyperscalers accountable for on the retail level. Um, and I think it's an all-of-the-above approach as it relates to assigning costs to the, the data centers themselves, which those hyperscalers right now are, are perfectly willing to do. They're willing to make those investments. Absolutely.

Miss Sweat, I see you nodding your head. You've had conversations with them, I presume? Yes, sir. I have met with many hyperscalers who are at a minimum willing to pay all the costs associated with their interconnection. And many of them are going beyond that and offering to subsidize the community with additional infrastructure programs or even bill subsidies.

I think the CEO of one of them said that even if they spent a few hundred billion dollars more than was necessary, in retrospect, it was a worthwhile investment. Mr. Rosner, I see you nodding your head. I completely agree. Um, we, we've had them come before our commission and, and testify there, and, and And what they say is, we'd like to go fast and we want to pay for it. And so my view is, let's let them.

And to your point on investments in communities, I mean, we've got examples of them putting a battery in every home for people affected by, you know, having the data center nearby. Things like that are great. Other things that they've done to lower regular bills, you know, I'm completely in favor of that. And is FERC postured right now from a policy and regulatory standpoint to ensure there's not that kind of double recovery? Do you need any other specific safeguards or reforms, or do you think you're postured well?

Uh, well, Senator, um, you know, we've discussed the, the orders to show cause that we gave to each RTO, and I think those, those orders make very important progress on making sure that regular consumers don't pay for infrastructure associated with, associated with data centers. Uh, of course, you know, if Congress wanted to add more specificity, uh, you know, I, I would defer to you, and I'm happy to provide Well, I just think based, based on what I hear from Arkansans, you know, they don't want to pay more for their power bills for these data centers, but they recognize that the data centers are a critical part of artificial intelligence, whether it's going to help us beat China or cure cancer or develop a summer reading plan for a kid to disregard and not follow. But they know that they want both of those things. And it's just important for us here in Congress and at FERC to make sure that we can deliver both of them. So, thank you.

Okay, that wraps up round 1. What I'd like to do, any members remaining beyond this point can ask an additional question. I'll ask one now and then we'll go to anybody else who wants to ask one additional question before we wrap up. Commissioner See, I'd like to turn to you. Last year, the Supreme Court held in the Seven County case— what many of us have known and believed for a long time, which is that NEPA is a procedural statute.

It's a procedural statute that requires you to review the project under consideration and not the cumulative effects of all other projects. Under your leadership and with your active involvement, the Commission has taken steps to implement that ruling. Can you just sort of explain to the committee what the Commission's done so far on this point and let us know whether, to what extent, what way, to what degree, um, some clarification from Congress on the proper scope of NEPA might help, um, provide additional certainty for projects, uh, that are before the jurisdiction of FERC. Absolutely, Senator. I'm really happy to talk about that.

I welcome the Seven Counties' decision, and for the simple reason that Ambiguity in NEPA and other environmental statutes and the litigation that comes from it is the biggest source of delay in getting needed infrastructure across the finish line. So of course we have important environmental responsibilities. We take that seriously, but we're not doing our job to the American people if those duties balloon beyond what the statute actually requires. So one of the things Seven Counties did is it confirmed that NEPA requires to look at the effects of the project in front of us and to not look at, um, non-foreseeable effects upstream, downstream, wherever else they are. That clarity is vital for us to do our work.

And so we've been taking a close look to make sure that we're looking at the things that we're required to under statute, but we're not adding additional categories that aren't required and that we were doing perhaps for other reasons. And some of them were an abundance of caution because courts didn't have that clarity. So what I would come back to in the question of what else Congress can be doing as, as we're trying to make the most of that decision, the clarity have, any additional clarity we have in NEPA and other environmental statutes is critical for us to do our job for the American people and to do it in a really predictable and streamlined fashion at the pace that we need. That's a great point. And, um, NEPA has worked.

One of the reasons we know it has helped is because a lot of other countries have followed it. But from my ability to observe what other countries have done with it, They've captured the benefits of NEPA without replicating what it has become here, which is the additional delays, something that other countries haven't— have wisely avoided replicating. And what we've seen from that is that they're able to still capture and maintain the benefits of environmental review without having the years-long or many decades-long delays that don't materially advance any environmental interest. Uh, Senator Heinrich, any other questions? Senator King?

Okay. Well, I, I want to thank each of you for being here. Uh, this has been very helpful testimony, um, and we're, we're very grateful to have your participation and, uh, your expertise. As this is a commission with a, uh, a very interesting and increasingly important array of responsibilities.. And so I appreciate your service.

Any senator who wants to submit questions for the record may do so. The deadline for submitting those questions will be at 6:00 PM tomorrow, that is Thursday, July 23rd. Senators also will have until 6:00 PM this coming Wednesday, June 29th— I'm sorry, July 29th— to add statements for the record with regard to today's hearing. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one comment.

I just want to reiterate what I said at the beginning, and that is to thank you for the work that you've been doing. And anybody watching this hearing, I would defy them to say which of you is a nominee of which party, and that's the way it's supposed to work. And this has been a very illuminating hearing. The questions have been answered in a straightforward and honest way, and I just really appreciate it. As I said at the beginning, I think you're modeling how our government is supposed to work.

Thank you very much. All right, just as we were about to gabble out, the prodigal son from North Dakota has returned. The chair recognizes Senator Hoeven.

You thought you were off the hook, but not just yet. But don't worry, he's pretty nice. Just don't call a bison at Buffalo, and don't call it a bison, you have to call it a bison. Those are the only two, the third rail's with them. Senator Hoeven.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. And you know, I've been on this committee for 16 years now, and I worked myself all the way up to this spot on the committee. Can you believe that? Thanks to each of you.

One of the biggest challenges that we have is with making sure that we have the ability to move baseload renewable energy, you know, and dispatchable energy around the country. And we need a grid system and, of course, a gas transportation system that enables us to do that and really to reach all aspects of the country, even places like New England, State of New York, and other places where we find it incredibly difficult to build transmission and gas pipelines. As we work on streamlining, regulatory reform, and so forth. And I know both our Chairman and Ranking Member are hard at work on that.

What are your recommendations to make sure that we have not only a gas, oil, pipe transportation system, but also a national grid that enables us to use all forms of energy as efficiently and as effectively as possible. And I'd like to hear the best ideas from each one of you. And I can't— you can't go more than 3 minutes and 42 seconds or I'll probably get in trouble with the chair and the ranking member. And I wouldn't want to do that. Go ahead, sir.

Okay, thank you, Senator. Well, you know, I would say, you know, sitting at FERC where we have a lot of control over the markets and the planning, of infrastructure. One thing that's become obvious to me is that it takes too long to build infrastructure in this country. And no matter what fuel source anyone might prefer, electrons don't wear capes. We just need a whole lot of them.

We need a lot of molecules. We just need a lot of energy in this country right now. And so anything Congress can do to speed that up, we need it all, you know, and We spend a lot of time thinking about our interconnection processes and, you know, I'll just give you an example. We accelerated 50 projects in the Mid-Atlantic part of the country. One of them was a natural gas combined cycle power plant, over 1,000 megawatts.

It was going to be built in Ohio. They got a grid upgrade cost of over $1 billion, almost as expensive as the plant itself. And the reason was we hadn't invested enough in the grid. You also mentioned New England. They have very high prices there.

I think it's something like 38 cents delivered. Whatever Congress can do to get energy infrastructure built more rapidly and make sure that, you know, it's not uncertain once the permit decision has been made, that all sounds directionally consistent with where we are. Do you think it's just more infrastructure, not somehow getting the regional operators and others to make sure that they figure out we've got to have dispatchable? And quit picking, you know, winners and losers in a way that impedes our ability to use the grid effectively. I think, you know, I'm committed to doing the work with the grid operators to make sure the markets are sending signals to invest in the right kind of technologies in the right places.

Good. Well, if that was our chairman that got you to commit to that, then he did a great job.

I'll say a couple of things on this. You know, the first is we have a responsibility under the Federal Power Act to be resource neutral, but not reliability neutral. And we have been really looking at our statutory authorities to make sure that we are recognizing the values that come from diverse sources for a balanced portfolio, but also recognizing different reliability attributes. So I think further clarity from Congress about how that principle, that resource neutrality, is not necessarily the same thing as reliability neutrality, I think that clarity would be helpful. I like that comment.

That's right on. And I guess the second thing I'd say is, is I'm piggybacking on a conversation that we had with the Chairman earlier. It goes to this idea of clarity is so important when it comes to whose roles are whose within the federal government as we're going about our duties to move infrastructure faster. We're hard at work trying to streamline infrastructure in a legally durable way. We're moving forward proposals for expanding our blanket programs to make sure we're streamlining.

But we need additional clarity from Congress when it comes to our responsibility versus other federal agencies when it comes to what is and isn't required in NEPA and other environmental statutes. So we're doing the best that we can to make sure we're moving forward, but I certainly welcome any more clarity that Congress would give. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I'm going to be a bit aggressive here.

I— my two things are: first, ending states' abilities to effectively veto federal projects that cross state lines through Clean Water Act denials cuts both ways. It can hold up gas pipeline infrastructure. It can also hold up interstate transmission lines. So Congress having more clarity there, uh, that states cannot effectively veto through denials would get more infrastructure built. The second one is limiting the ability of judicial review to hold up a project.

Some of my colleagues and I worked on big appeals of pipelines that went decades long, and if there were a statutory limit on how long judicial review can go, that would be extremely effective in making efficient and less expensive infrastructure projects. That was aggressive. Like the second one. First one, I was a governor for 10 years, so little trepidation there. Thank you for coming to see me this week.

I appreciate it. Or last week, I guess. Go ahead. Thank you, Senator. I'll just throw a whole bunch of acronyms T, D-R-A-T-T.

So I think, you know, I concur with many of my colleagues have mentioned. I think we need a backbone transmission that's allowing the interconnection of large loads and all generation of all types. I think this is a time when prices are high. We enable more demand-side resources to participate in the markets in general. That requires states to really step up and making sure that the levers that they can pull will bring more demand-side responses to the grid.

And then, and then ATT, we had mentioned here already, the advanced transmission technology is a no-brainer. We need to use them whenever they're appropriate and economically viable, and the best solutions for all consumers should be on the table. Thank you.

Senator, I'll speak really quickly. You know, you asked for what Congress can do to help on these things. Obviously, we have our homework assignments, which keep us very busy at FERC, but Congress can also help us to act as well. And the biggest thing they can do is reduce these roadblocks and hurdles to getting things built again. So I'll run through it real quickly.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Biggest thing we can do is clarify that the scope is limited to only the pollutants stemming from the discharge, not the activity as a whole. That's the biggest thing we can help with. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We can codify that NHPA is intended to be a process-related statute directing agencies to consider the effects on historic properties.

We need to get back to that like we have on NEPA. Sections 4 and 18 of the FPA for hydro matters. We need to clarify the hydro facility should only have the answer for their direct effects on the federal reservation under 4 or fisheries under 18. And then Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. We need to reform how critical habitat is designated.

We need to incorporate Maine lobstermen's holding that into the statute that clarifies the best scientific information and commercially available data, and not the worst case scenario, to give the benefit of the doubt to the species when issuing a biological opinion. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for your patience. If they were that good all day, you had a good hearing. Thank you very much. Well, I mean, we— Maine lobstermen made an appearance that made it worth it.

In and of itself.

Lobstermen being something that I know is very important to the economy of landlocked North Dakota. Yes, we like to eat them. Indeed. Thanks. All right, Angus.

I thought it was really an addition to the— Totally, totally. I do appreciate that, Senator. You good to go, Angus? Yes, sir. Okay.

With that, we stand adjourned. Thanks again. Keep up the great work.