'You've Got A Credibility Problem': Jared Huffman Torches Witness Over His Responses

5 months ago

During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing prior to the congressional recess, Rep. Jared Huffman questioned Permitting Institute President, Alex Herrgott on the Trump administration's energy policies.

Transcript

00:00I recognize, now recognize the ranking member, this gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman.

00:05Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hergut, some of your testimony, frankly, has me perplexed and confused.

00:14You have said over the course of many years, and certainly even today several times, that you

00:19support an all-of-the-above energy approach. You said explicitly you want to see, for example,

00:25more offshore wind. You are aware, aren't you, that all federal permitting for offshore wind,

00:32for all offshore wind, categorically, is halted by order of the President of the United States

00:37right now. You're aware of that, right? Yeah. Do you agree with that? It's not my job to agree

00:44or disagree with a tax credit. No, just yes or no, do you agree? I think that anybody that puts capital

00:49at risk, people need to get out of their way. So you disagree with the President's categorical

00:54stop on all federal permitting for offshore wind. That has nothing to do with the permitting

00:57process. Sounds like, sounds like you can, you can say it. It's okay to say it. Elections have

01:03consequences when you, when a Democrat runs and they stop oil and gas. I don't get in their way.

01:07When there's capital put at risk and the project moves forward. Mr. Hergut, I got a little bit more

01:11here because I heard you kind of awkwardly defending Secretary Burgum's new secretarial order that all solar

01:20and wind projects now have an extra layer of red tape. You said, well, maybe it's good to have them

01:29go straight to the Secretary, cut through all of these underlings, all of this nonsense. It's been

01:34bogging things down, complicating them. But I have the Secretary's order right here. It doesn't clear

01:40any of that underbrush away, any of that regulatory underbrush. It just adds more layers on top of all

01:46of it. A new special layer where they've got to go for subsequent review. They call it subsequent

01:52review to the office of the Deputy Secretary. And then a new final review all the way to the big

01:58cheese, the Secretary of Interior. Could you truly believe that this is justified in the name of

02:05transparency and visibility and the other pretexts that you have offered? Do you truly believe that,

02:12that this is good for solar and wind? If you'll allow me to answer the question, I can do it in 30 seconds.

02:16When you put out an executive order, much like the 250 executive orders that have this opaque guidance

02:21out to a GS-15 in the field who has no idea what whether or not they're okay to make a decision.

02:26And then you don't follow it up with formative guidance, which this one is a two page memo that

02:30says of the 69 decisions that are made that are relevant to a decision about a project that you

02:35already know that was tied to this executive order, it's elevated to the president or elevated to

02:40the S-1. Elevation within these decisions was going to have to happen anyway. The BLM State Director of Nevada

02:46or Arizona was not going to make a call. So it called out a spade what a spade was. In fact, putting your

02:51money where your mouth is and saying that it comes up to you after reconciled with an executive order.

02:55It sounds like you believe this is necessary for transparency and accountability and the other

03:00things that have been offered. I have one person to blame, not 50 that I don't see. I hear you and

03:04so if this is so good for visibility and transparency, it sounds like you've offered kind of a good

03:10government explanation for these new layers of bureaucracy on wind and solar. Would you support

03:16that for oil and gas projects? Absolutely. If the Department of Interior got the ability and

03:22Burgum could make a single decision and it was not spread across. No, all of the underbrush is still

03:27there. All of the red tape is still there. You've just got two new layers on top of it. Do you think

03:32that's a good idea for oil and gas projects too? There's not a record of decision is signed by a line

03:37officer out in the field. The Secretary of Burgum at this point could authorize or or deny a project at

03:43his will. That is the same sort of authority. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Herga, you got a credibility

03:47problem. You're making a mockery of this notion that we need to streamline the regulatory permitting

03:54process. There is a big governmental thumb on the scale for oil and gas and an absolute war on clean

04:01energy and everyone knows it. Unlike you, the folks in this administration will say the quiet part out

04:07loud. They want to kill wind and solar and offshore wind specifically. Mr. Mergan, you've been in this

04:13line of work for much of your career. Can you think of any good reason for all of this regulatory

04:19morass for solar and wind while having a big governmental thumb on the scale for fossil fuel

04:25including mandatory coal project approvals? I cannot and you know I worked in the federal government for

04:3130 plus years and during that time I worked with state directors in Wyoming and Utah and Nevada

04:37and they are capable of making these decisions in a streamlined and efficient way whether that's for

04:43fossil or for renewable. But it makes no sense to discriminate against this industry based on the

04:51testimony we've heard from Mr. Campbell today. And Mr. Mergan, you've talked about how technology can

04:57improve permitting efficiency. We have a new tool at the Fish and Wildlife Service. It's called IPAC,

05:03this one-stop console that lets you more quickly navigate the regulatory process. But there's a

05:09little warning that pops up if you try to review, if you try to use it and you're a wind and solar

05:14project, you're not eligible. Can you think of any good reason why the efficiency of this tool is

05:20available for fossil fuel projects but not clean energy? I think it's the very definition of arbitrary

05:25and capricious. It makes no sense. Thank you. I yield back.

'You've Got A Credibility Problem': Jared Huffman Torches Witness Over His Responses

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended