“Bureaucratic Delays and the Costs to Ratepayers and Electric Power Systems.”

Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses, and our guests in the audience today. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with committee rule 3(o). Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to hold an oversight hearing titled, "Bureaucratic Delays and the Costs to Ratepayers and the Electric Power Systems." I now recognize myself for a five-minute opening statement. Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hear from electric power system experts on how current management policies for electricity rights-of-way on federal lands are disjointed, inconsistent, and too often dependent on the unilateral decisions of local land managers. Permitting delays for right-of-way management on federal land creates unnecessary wildfire risk across the West, jeopardizes public safety, drives up electricity costs, and decreases electricity reliability. Nearly 90,000 miles of electricity rights-of-way are located on U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands and are necessary to deliver reliable and affordable electricity to communities across the western United States. Unfortunately, restrictive policies and untimely decision-making by federal land managers have handcuffed utilities across the West, substantially restricting their ability to implement much-needed and site-specific vegetation management activities. The result is a greater risk of catastrophic wildfire and a more hazardous environment for the men and women who work each day to reduce the wildfire risk for the American public. These disasters are preventable if the federal government can get out of the way. We have two primary land management agencies, the Forest Service and BLM, that oversee most of the electric rights-of-way on federal lands. The subcommittee has heard from utilities that the permitting process can vary widely from unit to unit within the National Forest System and even more so across the two separate agencies. These issues are not new. In 2018, Congress added a new section 512 to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This provision of law allowed electric utilities to manage vegetation within 10 feet of the right-of-way and required the agencies to identify categories of actions that do not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, otherwise known as categorical exclusions. Despite this statutory requirement, neither agency has identified nor established any new categorical exclusions to expedite approvals for vegetation management in and adjacent to utility rights-of-way, and the utilities continue to report delays and inconsistency. The Fix Our Forests Act, led by Chairman Westerman, would make several improvements to the current scope of section 512 of FLPMA by expanding the authority to clear hazardous trees from within 10 feet of the right-of-way to 150 feet. The legislation would also establish a new categorical exclusion for the development of vegetation management plans and activities carried out consistent with those plans. The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act still awaits a vote in the Senate more than one year after passing out of the House of Representatives. We urgently need to provide federal land managers and utilities the tools to manage our forests to reduce the frequency and intensity of wildfire in the West, and the time is now to act. I am pleased to be joined by our witnesses representing the electric power sector and the employees who carry out the essential work that powers America. Today, we will hear numerous real-life examples from these witnesses of unnecessary bureaucratic delays and inconsistencies encountered by those who are simply trying to keep the lights on. These stories speak to a national problem. Bureaucratic delays not only increase costs and corresponding electricity rates for customers, but also delay wildfire mitigation projects, putting communities and the bulk power system at further risk. With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today, and I recognize that you all had to overcome this weekend's winter storm and travel disruptions to be with us. I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Ralph Armstrong with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, who was unable to join us due to several flight cancellations despite his best efforts. I am especially grateful for Mr. Arhos with the IBEW, who agreed to join us at the last minute to deliver Mr. Armstrong's prepared remarks and ensure that the perspective of the men and women on the front lines would remain part of today's hearing. Thank you all, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I appreciate you acknowledging a moment ago that there are existing authorities that are specifically intended to move projects forward that make these electric utility lines more resilient, that help manage vegetation, that do other things we talk about in hearings like this, and they're simply not being implemented. And so when we talk about bureaucratic delay, it's an important conversation, but we've had several of these hearings now. I've lost track of how many, and unfortunately, it keeps being brought back to this notion that simply pressuring the Senate into passing Mr. Westerman's Fix Our Forests Act is the answer to all of these things. It's not. There's a lot more to the conversation here. We passed FOFA 13 months ago out of this House, and the Senate has its own ideas. FOFA has some good provisions that I supported. It has some bad ones that don't need to be in there, that are not real solutions to these problems that we talk about, and the Senate is working on those things. We've been sort of holding this committee hostage to this agenda of pressuring the Senate into enacting the House version of FOFA instead of, and I just offer a humble suggestion, maybe working with Senate Democrats who actually have some ideas about improving FOFA. I would love to see that. But we're back with another kind of FOFA cheerleading exercise. If we are truly serious about reducing wildfire risk, it seems to me we need more than new statutory categorical exclusions. The agencies already have a bunch of these authorities, as you've mentioned, Madam Chair. We need coordination among agencies. We ought to be doing serious oversight that has administration officials in this room, in those chairs, asking hard questions about why the heck this stuff is not happening. We need to ensure vegetation management and infrastructure upgrades are implemented on the ground and follow science-based, community-supported approaches. Now, I read in the written testimony many of the existing tools are just not being implemented successfully. We've done no oversight to understand why the heck that is. By flexing this committee's oversight muscle, we can get those tools working now for utilities and the communities that they serve. And if this Congress is willing to dig in and do real oversight, we could make a difference. The Trump administration, I think we would find if we did real oversight, is hollowing out the very federal agencies responsible for this work. That impairs our ability to get needed forest management work done. When utilities reach out to coordinate on this critical wildfire mitigation work, someone needs to answer the telephone and move projects forward. And as it stands right now, that capacity may not be there with the remaining federal staff stretched thin and forced to cover multiple roles just to keep their agencies running. And while this committee refuses to even question the Trump administration, the need for improvements on the ground is real for communities like those that I represent. They are concerned about wildfire risk and grid reliability, keeping their communities safe. I represent several tribal and rural communities in Northern California who live with the reality of climate change and increased wildfire risk. They endure prolonged outages, public power safety shutoffs, and wildfires every year. And when infrastructure fails or a wildfire ignites, the consequences for them are immediate. Businesses and schools close, food goes bad, emergency services are stretched thin. And for those that rely on electricity for medication or medical devices, a loss of power can be life-threatening. A few years ago in my district, the Smith River Complex fire damaged a major transmission line and cut power to an entire county. We were able to deploy some generators through a little workaround. I'm grateful for the coordinated response that got the power back on, but that event really emphasized the need for proactive investment to prevent these kind of disasters and not just reacting to them one at a time. So today's conversation is important. It should be about more than just vegetation management, though. It should be about the broader picture of public safety. We need to invest in infrastructure upgrades, in grid hardening, and in monitoring technology. We have an aging transmission system across vast landscapes, and in the face of hotter temperatures, prolonged drought, and stronger wind events, it is clear that the scale of this challenge is significant. I do look forward to the conversation here and hearing from all the witnesses. I'll have more to say when we get to the questions, Madam Chair, and with that, I yield back.

...to remove hazardous trees within 150 feet of the right of way. The legislation also included a new categorical exclusion for approval of vegetation management plans and activities carried out consistent with those plans. This new categorical exclusion would significantly reduce wildfire risk and keep electricity reliable and affordable in the West. Unfortunately, the Senate version of the bill removed this provision. I believe this provision should be added back in the Senate, as do several of our witnesses here today. And Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from July 20, 2025, from public power organizations representing over 150 community-owned electric utilities urging Congress to include this provision in any final forestry language.

So ordered.

The LA fires last January are a reminder that we no longer have a fire season, we have better and worse fire years. The Senate must act to give forest managers and utilities the tools necessary to fix our forest and protect the public. I once again thank all the witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to a robust discussion and I yield back.

Thank you, Chairman Westerman. I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening statement, and I'm glad she made it.

Thank you. Thanks to all the witnesses. Not happy with the snow across the country that got me here this morning instead of yesterday. So, good morning. Across every corner of the country, communities need safe, affordable, and reliable electricity. And in the West, especially in the rural areas I represent, electric utilities often need to work with the federal government to run and maintain power lines across public lands to provide that service. We should all agree that it must be a federal priority to reduce fire risk from electric infrastructure, especially as wildfires have become more frequent and severe in the face of climate change. Many consumer-owned utilities are stepping up to the challenge and investing significant time and resources into wildfire mitigation plans. But I believe Congress can and should do more to support collaborative solutions that prevent catastrophic wildfire, reduce ratepayer costs, and boost grid reliability. One major challenge is properly maintaining vegetation near power lines. Overgrown rights of way, especially in dry and windy conditions, greatly increase fire risk. We saw this in Oregon with devastating consequences in 2020 and every year since then. It's why I strongly supported Representative Carbajal's Fire Safe Electric Corridors Act, which would make it easier for the utilities to remove hazardous fuels near power lines on federal lands. It was bipartisan, it's common sense, it's sitting in the Senate. I also think there are opportunities to do vegetation management in a way that also supports wildlife habitat and provides recreational access with long-term cost savings. I look forward to hearing more about this from our witnesses today. However, we have seen that this administration's haphazard staffing cuts at the Forest Service and the BLM will only have further delayed right of way maintenance in projects. According to a recent analysis of OPM data, the Forest Service and BLM lost over 4,500 staff in 2025. Many of these civil servants were trained foresters, technical engineers, and natural resource managers. Without these workers, permit processing timelines have gotten slower, not faster. We need a strong, nonpartisan federal workforce to speed up projects on federal lands. In addition to maintaining the infrastructure we already have, Congress should do more to support smart investments in grid hardening and hazard mitigation. For example, I was proud to sponsor the POWER Act with my colleague, Mike Ezell, which passed the House last year. This bill would make it easier for consumer-owned utilities to use FEMA funds to invest in long-term hazard mitigation and grid resiliency when they rebuild after disasters. I first introduced this bill after a devastating ice storm in my district, in my community, at my house. Our communities were without power for weeks. If you're already going through the effort to work with FEMA to rebuild, you should be able to look at ways to improve your infrastructure and reduce the risk of future power outages that harm public safety and local economies. That also is in the Senate. Bipartisan, common sense bill. I hope they'll take it up soon. I look forward to today's conversation and to working with our witnesses to effectively manage our public lands, invest in infrastructure, connect the need for human resources in actually managing our forest to make us safer and allow us to power the grid and for you all to do the very important work that you do. And with that, thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you. I will now introduce our panel of witnesses. Mr. Jim Anderson, the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Midstate Electric Cooperative, a member company of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association from La Pine, Oregon. We have a wonderful WREA in the state of Wyoming that my brother is involved with, and so we appreciate you being here. Mr. Mason Baker, the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a member company of American Public Power Association from Salt Lake City, Utah. Welcome. Ms. Christina Hayes, the Executive Director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid from Washington, D.C. We're glad you're here. Mr. Randy S. Howard, the General Manager of Northern California Power Agency, a member company of American Public Power Association from Roseville, California. Glad you made it. Mr. Jason Bowling, the Chief Executive Officer of Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, a member company of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association from Sierra Vista, Arizona. Welcome. Dr. Carolyn Mahan, Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies at the Pennsylvania State University, representing the Right-of-Way Stewardship Council from Altoona, Pennsylvania. Mr. George Arhos, International Representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers from Darien, Illinois. Thank you for being able to be here. And Mr. Jesse Murray, Senior Vice President of Energy Delivery at NV Energy from Reno, Nevada. Welcome. I want to remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone, and we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow, and at the end of the five minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all of the witnesses to testify before member questioning. I now recognize Representative Bentz to introduce his constituent, Mr. Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to introduce one of my constituents, Jim Anderson, the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Midstate Electric Cooperative based in La Pine, Oregon, serving more than 22,000 accounts in my district. Mr. Anderson has traveled across the United States to be here today, some 2,600 miles, and then you get to travel back. And so I just I'm so pleased that you made the effort through all the weather to make it here today. In July of 2024, I had the opportunity to tour a portion of my district alongside Mr. Anderson. We were reviewing the damage done by the Darlene 3 wildfire, and that fire underscores exactly why today's discussion matters. There was significant infrastructure loss due to the fire, and corridors, power line corridors were involved. Jim brings more than three decades of experience in the electric industry, leading cooperatives in multiple states and working to ensure reliable, affordable power for rural families and businesses. Just as importantly, his leadership has focused on safety and strengthening wildfire resilience in the communities he's served. I appreciate his willingness to be here. Thank you for making the effort, that long trip, and look forward to hearing your testimony. Yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Anderson for five minutes of testimony.

Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jim Anderson. I'm the CEO of Midstate Electric Cooperative. We deliver power to over 22,000 members across 5,600 square miles in central Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my own insights and those of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, representing nearly 900 electric co-ops nationwide. Ironically, 30 years ago almost, a previous Midstate Electric CEO testified to this same committee on the very problem you're addressing today. In that case, Midstate Electric requested permission to trim hazard trees along our rights of way on U.S. Forest land. The Forest Service denied the request. Predictably, a tree fell into the power line, sparking a wildfire for which Midstate was held strictly liable for a cost of $100,000. Three decades later, we're still confronting the same systemic problems. Bureaucratic delays, costly regulations that stall our wildfire mitigation work, leaving the rural communities vulnerable and the utilities exposed to significant liability. As a not-for-profit electric co-op, we have no shareholders, only member-owners. Every dollar we spend comes directly from the families and the small businesses we serve, many of whom are already balancing rising energy cost with food, fuel, and housing costs. In fact, our members pay the equivalent of two months' power bills just to fund wildfire mitigation. Midstate is doing more than we've ever done before to protect our infrastructure and harden our system. Nearly 70 percent of the land in Midstate service territory is federally managed, including some of the highest wildfire risk areas in Oregon. Vegetation management on federal lands is one of the most effective tools that is available to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk, and yet it remains an area where we have little control. We experienced this firsthand in 2024 with the Darlene 3 fire that burned over 4,000 acres near Midstate's headquarters. And I would like to thank Congressman Bentz for touring the area immediately in the aftermath of the fire. The Forest Service initially cleared a large section of trees after the fire, but left hazard trees immediately adjacent to our lines. It took another year before Midstate was finally authorized to remove the trees at our expense. That kind of inefficiency increases risk and undermines the very mitigation efforts that we are all trying to advance. Midstate also operates a power line through the rugged Newberry National Volcanic Monument, serving a resort, cabins, and Forest Service facilities. A spectacular resource that is one spark away from a devastating wildfire. For years, we have repeatedly sought to expand clearance around our power lines to no avail. Our line is surrounded by dense pine trees across the entire utility corridor. At Midstate, we have been required to perform costly historical preservation assessments of our power lines before we can harden them, even when there is no historical significance. In another case, we requested access across BLM lands to provide electricity for two Midstate members, only to be told by the agency that they simply did not have time to review the permits. Those families are still waiting for electricity today. When they do have time, permitting approvals often take years when we believe they could be processed within 60 to 90 days. And agency turnover can force us to start back at square one. We also experience a complete lack of uniform standards, not only between the Forest Service and BLM, but between agency districts and even ranger to ranger. We respect the professionals within our land management agencies. Their work is vital and we value those relationships. But wildfire risk is only growing and the current system is not working. That's why there is no more important action that this Congress can take than to pass the Fix Our Forests Act. And we hope to see further reforms that ensure land management agencies implement long-term solutions and reduce unnecessary delays and provide us certainty. Accountable to the people that we serve, electric co-ops stand ready to be partners in this effort. Too much is at stake to wait another 30 years to ensure rural communities across the country have access to safe, reliable, and affordable electricity. I thank you for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to any questions you may have.

I appreciate your powerful testimony. It really is important information to know that we're still talking about the same thing after all of these years. I now recognize Representative Maloy to introduce her constituent, Mr. Baker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to introduce our next witness, Mr. Mason Baker, CEO and General Manager of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, or UAMPS, in Salt Lake City. Mr. Baker's testifying on behalf of the American Public Power Association. He started his time at UAMPS as Chief Legal Counsel and General Counsel, overseeing regulatory activities and compliance at an organization that has real and relevant experience with forest management, including delays, inefficiencies, and wildfires. So I anticipate his testimony today being very valuable to the committee. Thank you.

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Baker for five minutes of testimony.

Good morning, Chairman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the financial impacts of bureaucratic delays. My name is Mason Baker, and I have the privilege of being the CEO and General Manager of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, also known as UAMPS. UAMPS is a joint action agency that provides wholesale power supply to its not-for-profit utility members across seven Western states. I'm also testifying today on behalf of the American Public Power Association, the voice of not-for-profit community-owned utilities that power more than 2,000 towns and cities nationwide. Public power utilities are in every state except Hawaii. Collectively, we serve over 55 million people in 49 states and five U.S. territories. Our public power business model is designed to provide safe and reliable electricity with no profit margin built into our rates. However, when costs rise, we must pass those increases on to our members, who in turn must recover those costs in customer rates. As the members of this committee know well, wildfires represent an existential challenge for the wholesale electricity providers like UAMPS and our distribution utility members. In a catastrophic wildfire, not only is our infrastructure susceptible to damage, but utilities face significant liability if our equipment is found to be the source of ignition. To reduce this risk, UAMPS members are allocating more of their budgets towards wildfire management and specifically vegetation management, as many of our members have service territories in beautiful Western landscapes known as wildland-urban interfaces, or affectionately known as WUIs. However, managing the risk of wildfires is a shared challenge, and I'd like to touch on two specific areas where bureaucratic delays directly impact UAMPS and the communities we serve. Proactive vegetation management is the single most cost-effective tool we have for managing wildfire ignition risk. Yet activities such as upgrading or modifying a power line facility require federal agencies to conduct lengthy environmental analysis and studies. Utility rights-of-way frequently cross federally managed lands by different agencies, including the BLM, Forest Service, tribal lands, and others, each with its own permitting processes and standards. Utilities must navigate multiple approval chains for a single corridor segment that can face delays in addressing imminent threats to electric infrastructure. A categorical exclusion from NEPA as proposed in the Fix Our Forests Act means we can get that work done on a timeline that is consistent with the urgency of mitigating poor forest landscape conditions. Second point I'd like to make is to highlight that utilities are often held strictly liable for fires sparked by their equipment, even if the fire was caused by a hazard tree that the federal government refused to let the utility remove. UAMPS is a transmission-dependent utility, meaning we largely rely on private transmission providers to ensure power generated at UAMPS projects is delivered to our member communities. These transmission providers have experienced significant wildfire liability that has led to drastic measures such as public safety power shutoffs. We appreciate and respect the necessity of these measures, but these shutoffs can mean no AC on the hottest of days where daily temperatures routinely reach 110 degrees. The result of this liability is an enormous cost to consumers. To put it into context, PacifiCorp increased its transmission rate to UAMPS by nearly 40 percent in 2024. Further, a report issued earlier this month identified the need to build more than 12,000 miles of new transmission and upgrade close to 4,000 miles of transmission in the West. That is a substantial and growing network of rights-of-way that must be carefully managed to avoid ignition. The Fix Our Forests Act takes important steps to reducing bureaucratic delays and improving vegetation management plans and allowing the removal of hazard trees near power lines. We would advocate for further liability shield provisions to stipulate that if a utility identifies a hazard and requests permission to mitigate it and the federal agency denies or delays that request, that utility should not be held liable for resulting ignition. In closing, I want to express my appreciation for the work Congress has dedicated to this issue. It is essential that the Fix Our Forests Act becomes law so we can best mitigate our exposure to wildfire risk and be better positioned to meet the affordability challenges facing the electric industry. Again, I want to appreciate the opportunity to testify at this important hearing and look forward to being a resource as you work through solutions for this growing problem.

Thank you, Mr. Baker. I now recognize Ms. Hayes for five minutes of testimony.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Christina Hayes, and I am Executive Director of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, a diverse coalition focused on the development of high-capacity regional and interregional transmission as the most cost-effective and reliable way to build out the grid. It's great to be here with my former colleague from Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Jesse Murray of NV Energy, as well as a representative from ACEG board member IBEW 1245, as well as the other esteemed witnesses. I wanted to start with telling you some of the reasons why we do what we do. Trish Terry was bundled in ski clothes. She died snuggled on the couch with her husband of 50 years. Diana Rangel needed dialysis three times a week but died the day before her dialysis center could reopen. And Gene Taylor played piano with the Fabulous Thunderbirds. He was found by his roommate frozen in his bed. Almost exactly five years ago, at the height of Winter Storm Uri, Texas could only import 800 megawatts on a few interregional transmission lines and lost power for three days. In contrast, the Midwest moved 13 gigawatts of power across hundreds of lines and had rolling outages that only lasted three hours. Even when the consequences are not so dire, limited ability to move power during extreme weather can lead to incredible price spikes. During Winter Storm Fern, just a couple weeks ago, an additional one gigawatt of transfer capability from Western to Eastern PJM would have saved $109 million in just 10 days. As we enter a period of unprecedented load growth due to electrification, manufacturing, and data centers, a fragile grid should be unacceptable. President Trump said the grid is old and tired, and he's right. Transmission is not a luxury, it's the backbone of a modern economy. There is an urgent need for well-planned regional and interregional transmission using the best available equipment, such as grid-enhancing technologies and high-performance conductors, to move power efficiently, lower long-term costs, and strengthen reliability. And delay is expensive. A recent WIRES study showed that the cost of a transmission line can increase by up to a third for every year of delay. The New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line, initially estimated to cost approximately $1 billion, ultimately cost nearly $1.5 billion after two years of delay. Those costs are passed on to customer bills. It doesn't have to be this way. Accelerating siting and permitting is a decision that Congress can make. First, high-capacity multi-state transmission lines, the lines most critical to achieving reliability and affordability, particularly during extreme events, should have a one-stop shop for siting and permitting, just like natural gas pipelines do. Streamlining multiple rounds of permitting for infrastructure that is in the national interest will ensure that it is built faster and cheaper. Second, early and well-structured community engagement is essential, not just to build the line faster, but to develop the relationship that helps owners and operators manage the line, repair damaged facilities, and expand infrastructure for the lifespan of the project, which can last for 50 years or more. Projects that engage landowners and communities early and identify routing concerns sooner build trust, reduce litigation risk, and avoid costly late-stage conflicts and ongoing ill will. That translates directly into shorter timelines and lower costs for ratepayers. Good developers know this, and many regulatory frameworks already implement it. Last year, ACEG issued a report, The Pace of Trust, which documents how this works in practice. Consider Minnesota Power's Great Northern Transmission Line, which included more than a year of structured outreach before permits were filed. They received public comments and answered them, convened nearly a dozen workshops with written invitations to local officials, and held 28 open houses with over 1,300 attendees. By identifying concerns early and adjusting the route accordingly, the 220-mile 500-kV project completed permitting in just over two years and was energized in 2020. Finally, as this committee has noted, wildfire management must also be addressed. Uncertainty around who bears the burden of catastrophic risk has raised market concerns and increased borrowing costs, ultimately leading to higher rates for customers. Mitigating risk through new technologies and vegetation management are important steps in addressing this challenge. Thank you for considering my testimony. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Hayes. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Howard for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify. My name is Randy Howard, General Manager of Northern California Power Agency, representing 16 public power communities that collectively serve about 700,000 customers across Central and Northern California. I'm also here on behalf of the American Public Power Association, representing more than 2,000 not-for-profit community-owned electric utilities nationwide. Public power operates in some of the nation's highest wildfire risk landscapes, and we see every day how administrative delays across the federal lands increase wildfire hazards, they raise the cost of electricity to our customers, and they threaten the grid reliability. This hearing titled “Bureaucratic Delays and the Cost to Ratepayers in Electric Power Systems” could not be more accurate. Wildfire now is a systemic electric grid risk. The federal agencies acknowledge the scale of this crisis. The U.S. Forest Service 10-year wildfire crisis strategy calls for treating up to 50 million acres, including 20 million acres on national forest lands. Yet the ability to reach these goals is limited by the speed and the consistency of permitting and review. For utilities, time lost equals risk gained. Every season that routine vegetation work, hazard tree removal, or grid hardening is delayed, especially on or near federal lands, increases the probability of an ignition and increases operation and maintenance cost, increases our contractor standby charges, it impacts our grid reliability, and increases our insurance exposure. Our public power members experience delays for basic activities such as hazard tree removal, pole replacement, grid hardening, patrol road maintenance and access, and vegetation management, even within existing previously disturbed rights-of-way. One of the issues that hasn't been discussed much, not all fires are ignited by electric grids, most of them are not. But every fire does impact our electric grids. And so after major wildfires come through and damage our utilities and our infrastructure, our ability to rebuild back, build back smarter, more resilient, is also challenged by a number of the requirements that we have to go through. And so most of the time we just rebuild back the same way it was, and that has a direct cost impact to our ratepayers. Also after major wildfires, post-fire sediment surges from the adjacent federal lands and the hillsides deposits into our hydropower reservoirs, and it increases in many cases the deposition maybe 10-fold or greater, as we've seen and we have documented cases at NCPA. That threatens our water storage capacity, it damages our turbine intakes and our infrastructure, and it impacts the long-term grid reliability. Congress and the agencies have already provided powerful tools, including NEPA Section 109, FLPMA Section 512, BLM's 2025 permanent instruction memorandum, PIM 007, and the work that's happened here on the House-passed bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act. But approving FOFA will combine a number of these efforts into... ...sir. Our public power members experience delays for basic activities such as hazard tree removal, pole replacement, grid hardening, patrol road maintenance and access, and vegetation management even within existing previously disturbed rights-of-way. One of the issues that hasn't been discussed much, not all fires are ignited by electric grids, most of them are not, but every fire does impact our electric grids. And so after major wildfires come through and damage our utilities and our infrastructure, our ability to rebuild back, build back smarter, more resilient, is also challenged by a number of the requirements that we have to go through. And so most of the time, we just rebuild back the same way it was, and that has a direct cost impact to our ratepayers. Also after major wildfires, post-fire sediment surges from the adjacent federal lands and the hillsides, it deposits into our hydropower reservoirs, and it increases in many cases the deposition maybe 10-fold or greater, as we've seen and we have documented cases at NCPA. That threatens our water storage capacity, it damages our turbine intakes and our infrastructure, and it impacts the long-term grid reliability. Congress and the agencies have already provided powerful tools, including NEPA Section 109, FLPMA Section 512, BLM's 2025 permanent instruction memorandum, PIM 007, and the work that's happened here on the House-passed bipartisan FIX OUR FORESTS Act. But approving FOFA will combine a number of these efforts into fireshed management areas, fireshed center and registry, expedited reviews, and Title II in FOFA, the categorical exclusions are critical for our success longer term for vegetation management authorities that will reduce some of the delays that we see today, again, directly impacting the affordability to our ratepayers. We see inconsistency even in some of these powerful tools that are already available, where the adoption of these tools vary across regions and agencies. And to reduce costs and improve wildfire safety, I respectfully offer three core recommendations. First, let's approve FOFA with the categorical exclusions and implement FOFA Titles I and II rapidly and uniformly. Two, standardize programmatic NEPA and cross-agency categorical exclusions and the adoption to provide consistent timelines and reduce variance. Three, align Forest Service procedures with BLM's PIM 2025-007 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act Section 512 to ensure consistent rules for vegetation and hazardous tree removal. Timely mitigation is safety to our community, timely mitigation is reliability to our electric grid, timely mitigation is affordability to our ratepayers. So I thank you for your leadership on this issue and holding this hearing. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Howard. The chair now recognizes Mr. Bowling for five minutes.

Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jason Bowling. I'm the CEO of Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative in southeastern Arizona. We serve nearly 60,000 meters across rural Arizona, representing well over 100,000 residents, and we do that with about 180 hardworking and dedicated employees. We own and maintain the electric distribution system serving Fort Huachuca, one of Arizona's largest military installations and the state's largest by economic impact. I'm honored to be here alongside a fellow electric co-op CEO, Jim Anderson, and the challenges I will discuss today are not unique to my co-op. Together, our testimonies provide a glimpse into obstacles that have come to be expected in keeping our community safe. As cooperatives, we are owned by the people we serve. We operate at cost. We do not exist to generate profits for outside shareholders. Every dollar we spend comes directly from the members who pay their electric bills. That structure fundamentally shapes everything we do. When regulatory delay drives up project costs, those costs are borne by rural families, farmers, and small businesses. Wildfire mitigation is part of our daily operations. We inspect our system, use drones to assess risk, we replace aging poles and manage vegetation to reduce ignition risk. When this work occurs on federal lands, the permitting structure often determines whether we can act on a practical timeline. A clear example is our Fairbanks corridor near the San Pedro River just west of Tombstone, Arizona. It is a sensitive area with habitat, historical, and cultural significance. We identified the need for pole replacement and vegetation management years ago. The work itself was routine. The permitting process was not. Because multiple agencies had overlapping and at times conflicting jurisdictional authority, we encountered higher costs and duplicative reviews. It took 15 years to secure approvals. During that time, poles aged, vegetation expanded, and drought conditions intensified. The risk increased while we waited. For 15 years, we understood the growing exposure in that corridor, but we could not align action with risk because process timelines did not match operational reality. As risk conditions escalated, we began serious internal discussions about whether public safety power shutoffs could eventually become necessary during extreme weather. It's not a step any cooperative takes lightly. Cutting power to our own members to prevent wildfire is a last resort, and it illustrates the gravity of operating under prolonged permitting uncertainty. After 15 years, we finally began vegetation management and construction. The physical work took only weeks. The compliance costs alone for about a mile and a half of line totaled roughly $500,000. Thanks to the hardworking employees I mentioned earlier, the work is now complete. Better agency coordination could have prevented years of risk, though, and hundreds of thousands in avoidable costs. We support environmental stewardship and cultural resource protection. The intent behind these safeguards is important. Our concern is that when process becomes fragmented and unpredictable, it delays routine prevention work. In high-risk wildfire environments, delay itself can jeopardize the very landscapes and habitats those regulations are designed to protect. Wildfire risk does not distinguish between distribution and transmission assets. An ignition event can affect multiple layers of the grid and disrupt service to surrounding communities and critical facilities, including Fort Huachuca. The cost of inaction is measured in elevated wildfire risk, increased financial pressure on rural ratepayers, and greater exposure to catastrophic loss. Passage of the FIX OUR FORESTS Act is a critical first step. Congress can help by expediting environmental review for routine vegetation management, establishing coordinated review processes with defined timelines, and providing clear authority to address hazard trees near power lines before they become an ignition source. Prevention work is practical. It reduces risk before disaster strikes. I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Bowling. The chair now recognizes Dr. Mahan for five minutes.

I have Hannah here who's going to put up my slides. Thank you so much for being here, and I want to appreciate the bipartisan effort of this committee on these issues. I'm a professor first and foremost at Penn State, and today I'm representing the Right-of-Way Stewardship Council. You all have my written statement, and I kind of just want to do some highlights from that statement using these slides. And I guess you can take the professor out of the classroom, but you can't take the classroom out of the professor. So here's a little five-minute lecture. I have been doing work and Penn State has been doing work with industry partners for over 75 years focused on rights-of-way management. And we're focusing on how can we ensure affordability and reliability while also protecting the environment. And although our research focuses in the Northeast, our work has applications across the United States and I would argue globally. What you see on the screen here is our website, and so any of the data that I reference in my one-pager, you can go to the peer-reviewed literature on that website where we have published the results of this 75 years' worth of research. Next slide, Hannah, please. One of the things that I haven't heard the panelists, and I'm so happy to be here with them, they've talked a lot about vegetation management, and I just want to make a point about integrated vegetation management, which is a process that I know a lot of rights-of-way stewards use. And it's a way to keep the end in mind. What are we trying to achieve on these rights-of-way and how do we get there? As an ecologist, I'm interested in the environment, the ecological stability of a habitat, and that also provides some advantages to rights-of-way. If you have stable native habitat, you support wildlife, native wildlife, you also minimize the risks of wildfires, and I've provided some citations for that, and you also minimize the invasive species that can come into your right-of-way. Also proper management can reduce risk to workers because they don't have to go out and manage the right-of-way as often. So I provide you with a definition here. Integrated vegetation management is something that is recognized and approved by U.S. Forest Service, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It's written as a recommended practice, but it really hasn't been put into policy yet. Next slide, Hannah, please. I just provide you two images here. The image at the top is from a colleague of mine, Eric Brown, who's with SMUD in California, and he has done his work here, let me just get the name right, on the Plumas National Forest near Quincy, California. And they've used integrated vegetation management on their right-of-way. So the end in mind I indicated, you want low-growing vegetation dominated by native species. Here you see a right-of-way dominated by native lupines that don't interfere with the power lines but provide amazing habitat for native wildlife. The other photograph here is from my own research plots in central Pennsylvania, and you're seeing native Helianthus, which is a native sunflower, supporting migrating monarchs as they head south to hibernation in Mexico. Next slide, and this is my final slide. This work also has, I know today we're talking about energy, and I tell my students it doesn't matter how the energy is made, if it's renewable, non-renewable, we have to move it across the landscape. We have to get the energy to the people. And in this case, I'm doing research with Shell Midstream, and we're looking at rights-of-way for gas pipelines. Same ideas apply. There are different restrictions on gas pipelines than on electric transmission, but we are managing using integrated vegetation management. The standard to date has been mowing, which you can see pictured on your left, and a lot of you may be here would say that looks safe and reliable, but it's actually expensive. We know that mowing initially might be cheaper, but over time it becomes more expensive than integrated vegetation management. And finally, the picture on the right is from the same location using integrated vegetation management after only one year, and you see common milkweed and other native plants dominating the system. So thank you for letting me be here. I'm excited to answer your questions, and I'm happy to be here with the representatives from electric industry who I've worked for for many years. Thank you.

...recognize Mr. Arhos for five minutes of testimony.

Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is George Arhos. I'm a journeyman lineman and an international representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. It is the largest electrical union in the country. We represent nearly 887,000 members, both active and retired. That includes vegetation management professionals, line clearance tree trimmers, and inspectors, as well as electrical workers. We also have one of the largest IBEW locals in Local 1245. Local 1245 has over 30,000 members. They have, excuse me, they have 5,000 vegetation management professionals, line clearance tree trimmers, and inspectors just in that local. So they work for energy providers all across central and northern California, northern and northern Nevada, including Pacific Gas and Electric, Sacramento Municipality Utility District, Northern California Power Agency, and NV Energy. A little bit about myself. So I'm a nearly 30-year member of the IBEW. I'm a trained journeyman lineman. I currently chair the main and executive subcommittees for the National Electrical Safety Code. I sit on the steering and executive subcommittee, excuse me, committees for the electrical transmission and distribution partnership with OSHA. I preside over the National Cable Splicing Certification Board, and I sit as a board member of the Electrical Industry Certification Association, as well as several other industry committees and groups. So I'm here to speak about wildfire prevention, grid reliability, worker safety, and energy affordability. These issues are directly connected. Every day, IBEW line clearance crews work in high-risk environments removing trees and vegetation that threaten power lines, often on federal lands. When vegetation contacts energized lines, the result can be an outage or a wildfire. Utilities need a clear, consistent, and timely process to remove hazardous vegetation. Instead, routine maintenance on federal land faces overlapping regulations, permitting delays, seasonal restrictions, and inconsistent standards. Projects are frequently halted by regulatory red tape or conflicting requirements. These delays are not just bureaucratic inconveniences. They increase wildfire risk and drive up electricity costs. Wildfires destroy infrastructure, interrupt service, and require expensive emergency repairs. According to RMI, the Rocky Mountain Institute, wildfire-related costs account for roughly 16 percent of total electricity costs for California customers. Delays in permitting also increase workforce costs. When crews must repeatedly mobilize and demobilize due to uncertainty, recruitment expenses rise and temporary labor shortages can occur. Those costs ultimately reach the ratepayers. The IBEW supports using every available tool to mitigate and prevent wildfires. This is why we support the FIX OUR Forests Act. Coordinating grid hardening and vegetation management across federal lands will reduce wildfire risk, improve grid reliability, and enhance worker and community safety. Training and workforce standards are equally important. Working near energized lines requires highly skilled professionals. Mistakes in this environment can result in loss of life, property destruction, and disruption of essential services. Yet training standards often vary by contractor or may not exist at all. The IBEW strongly supports minimum training standards. California Senate Bill 247 provides a strong model by establishing training requirements, worker qualifications, prevailing wage protections. Since its implementation, the industry has experienced lower turnover, fewer injuries, and stronger career pathways. Delivering electric power is hazardous work. IBEW members understand the systems and risk better than anyone. Protecting the health and safety of line workforce has been a founding principle of the IBEW for more than 130 years. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Arhos. I now recognize Mr. Murray for five minutes of testimony.

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Jesse Murray, and I am the Senior Vice President of Energy Delivery for NV Energy and also apparently the anchor witness of this panel today. [Laughter.] NV Energy is an investor-owned utility with 45,000 square miles in its service territory in Nevada. We provide power to more than 1.4 million customers representing 90 percent of Nevadans and help support the electricity needs for a tourist population of over 50 million annually. My testimony, my written testimony, covers details on two examples that NV Energy is facing as a utility operating on federal lands managed by the Forest Service. As part of my testimony today, there are really three key takeaways that I ask this subcommittee to consider as you work to protect federal lands, its resources, and the adjacent communities from the threat of catastrophic wildfire. I say this not just as a utility expert, but also as a person with a family who lives right next to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, experiencing both its natural beauty and in its shadow of catastrophic wildfire risk. First, NV Energy and its employees are committed to protecting Nevadans from the threat of catastrophic wildfire through the PowerSafe NV program. This program drives investments in grid hardening, infrastructure inspections, vegetation management, situational awareness, and operational practices. We inspect 14,000 poles per year, trim 15,000 trees annually, and clear 2,000 miles of lines. As Nevadans, we are committed to protecting our communities and being good stewards of our natural resources, including our federal lands. We take this responsibility seriously and make it our highest operational priority as a company. This year, we will hit half a billion dollars in total investment in this program. The presence of my co-presenter, Mr. Arhos, who is speaking also on behalf of Mr. Ralph Armstrong, IBEW 1245, further reinforces our shared commitment. IBEW 1245 represents hardworking and skilled NV Energy linemen, tree specialists, and other frontline employees that work to safely deliver electricity every day at an affordable price. I mention NV Energy's total investment because ultimately our customers do pay this cost. We must invest that money as efficiently as possible to reduce the risk. The process to permit work on federal lands is a noteworthy cost driver that can have an impact on customers' bills depending on what requirements, actions, and timelines the utilities must follow. Second, NV Energy operates within different national forests. We maintain stewardship agreements with those forests that include federal grant funding. We participate in resilient corridor work to clear right-of-way around our lines while also improving the health of the forest well beyond that right-of-way. We have a common resilient corridor decision memo with multiple forests that should provide standard vegetation management objectives and specifications. Yet we find one national forest can apply the memo contents quite differently, adding requirements that can unnecessarily expand the workload for little actual benefit in protecting the land. Finally, I think these divergent requirements result from local staff having to interpret risks and considerations based on unclear complex rules that translate into an approach that covers all the bases, air quotes added. Combining these complex requirements with limited resources, timelines get extended that generate more risk due to the inability to complete the work. We have positive relationships with multiple Forest Service and BLM staff. I am convinced that we have a common shared goal in reducing wildfire risk, but we lack a consistent and standard playbook to provide that clarity and certainty that we need. The risk of delaying the work is often not factored. The work may impact a couple hundred acres but could save thousands of acres from avoided wildfire. Yet that avoided impact is rarely considered as a priority in the process. The line removal example in my written testimony is a prime example of that. We want to remove a century-old de-energized line to prevent a wildfire igniting from accidental energization, like what happened in the LA fires, yet cannot get the focus, attention, or required steps identified to complete that work. I further highlight that this work is to permanently remove some of our footprint from the forest, restoring a more pristine condition. The FIX OUR Forests Act contains needed improvements that help to streamline these processes. It is important that bills like FIX OUR Forests provide these tools, but more importantly signal the high priority that this work must take in order to address this threat, preserve these lands, and protect surrounding communities. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to questions from the subcommittee.

I want to thank each and every one of you for your incredibly valuable and enlightening testimony today. We appreciate you being here. And I am now going to recognize members for five minutes of questioning. I'm going to begin with myself. I'm going to start with the utility representatives and Ms. Hayes, and I have for each of you a question, and that is that each of you have testified today about the permitting bottlenecks or bureaucratic delays that prevent projects from moving forward. Quickly, because I only have five minutes, can each of you share with the committee the most impactful permitting reform measure that would deliver on the goals of your respective testimonies? Mr. Anderson, I will begin with you.

The most critical for a CEO in my position at Midstate, permitting streamlining. Move us through, get us on the same page so district to district, ranger to district, we know exactly what to anticipate as we move forward with the permitting. Let us do our job.

Thank you. Mr. Baker.

Yes, thank you. Very supportive of the categorical exclusions as proposed in FIX OUR Forests Act. So that would be what we'd most recommend.

Okay. And Ms. Hayes.

Same. And where there are multi-state transmission lines, allow them to be sited and permitted like natural gas pipelines are. There's already an office at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that does all this, and they can consolidate the plant siting and permitting and move it through much faster.

Wonderful. Mr. Howard.

I'd say ditto to the previous comments, but following the enactment of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, agencies can adopt other agencies' categorical exclusions under NEPA Section 109. It's not being done. It needs to be done. That's an urgency issue. It's already an available tool to us. I think if we can get the agencies to put that together and provide those tools to us today, it's going to help right now.

Thank you. And Mr. Bowling.

I think coordinating and streamlining our permitting processes would be incredibly helpful.

Wonderful. And Mr. Murray.

Agree with everything that's been said. Certainly streamlining processes, categorical exclusions, and required timelines for permit issuance.

Thank you. And Mr. Arhos, I'd like to turn to you now. I want to thank you again for standing in for Mr. Armstrong on such short notice. His testimony highlighted and your testimony highlighted one of the under-discussed human aspects of permitting delays, and that is the safety of the line workers and specialists clearing the vegetation. This work is complex and hazardous, and delays mean more overgrowth and dead trees encroaching on power lines. How do these delays increase hazards for the tree trimming crews compared to predictable and condition-based schedules for vegetation management?

Thank you for the question. So what I would say about that is this. When you have a utility or a contractor, anyone doing this type of work within the industry, they have a dependable workforce typically. And when you put that dependable workforce out and they're doing day-to-day work, they're working as a crew, there's continuity there. Once you decide to kind of blow it all up and say that's it, we're not doing that anymore, that goes away temporarily. And so there's, the safety aspect really is the crews, the being together, doing that work together day in and day out, as opposed to throwing qualified workers, but just throwing them at a project and treating it more as a, I got a tree in the backyard that needs to get cut and then my neighbor in about six months needs one cut. ...a utility or a contractor, anyone doing this type of work within the industry, they have a dependable workforce typically. And when you put that dependable workforce out and they're doing day-to-day work, they're working as a crew, there's continuity there. Once you decide to kind of blow it all up and say, "That's it, we're not doing that anymore," that goes away temporarily. And so the safety aspect really is the crews, being together, doing that work together day in and day out, as opposed to throwing qualified workers, but just throwing them at a project and treating it more as a, "I got a tree in the backyard that needs to get cut," and then my neighbor in about six months needs one cut.

We need consistency.

We need to have that consistency.

And certainty. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, I'm going to turn to you again. I'd like to focus on the example you shared about Midstate's transmission lines in the Deschutes National Forest and the Newberry National Volcanic Monument. My understanding is that the picture behind us shows the state of your right-of-way in this area, and your organization cannot get the Forest Service even to begin the permitting process to reestablish a safe clearance. Can you please share with the committee the reason for this hold up and what happens to you and your members if one of those trees contacts your lines and starts a fire?

Thank you for the question. The reason for the hold up is delays in permitting. We can't get coordination in the agency to actually move forward on anything. It's just a dead standstill. We've repeatedly gone to the Forest Service every year and asked for permission to actually move forward with this.

How many years?

I've been at the co-op now for five years, and it preceded me by many.

And you're not getting any kind of response.

We have not. If one of those lines actually contacts, creates a fire, we could be at a point where it would be bankruptcy for the co-op. It could put us out of business, turn the keys in.

What would a safe clearance look like?

The safe clearance what we're asking for is a 30-foot right-of-way and then remove danger trees up to 150 feet outside that cannot contact our lines. So it would definitely be an improvement to us and to improvement to the community. We value this resource that we have.

You know, again, I want to thank all of you for the work that you do in making our lives better, what you do in providing this incredibly important resource for us, and thank you for the work that you do. I'm also going to go on to other members for questioning. First, I will ask the ranking member, Mr. Huffman, for five minutes of questions. Again, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We certainly are hearing from these witnesses some great examples of where serious oversight would be helpful to get folks from the Forest Service, from BLM, and the Department of Interior in these chairs and ask them hard questions. Why aren't these pending applications being acted on? Why did it take them years to even do their rulemaking, years when Congress told them to do it within one year under Section 512 of FLPMA? We heard from Mr. Howard about how cross-agency CEs under the Fiscal Responsibility Act Section 109 are not yet being operationalized, and the master plan and access templates under FLPMA Section 512 are still not operationalized. So this is helpful. This is a real, I think, a red flag that we have agencies dropping the ball right now, and we seem to be talking too much about new legislative authorities, specifically FOFA, when we've got a whole bunch of existing authorities that just aren't being made to work and they should be. I hope we can return the conversation to some of that because these are things that we can do right now to make a difference on these issues. Ms. Hayes, I want to ask you about the importance of aging infrastructure and how that increases the likelihood of outages and wildfires and what the true costs to ratepayers are from that problem.

Thank you for the question. We are at a point where the transmission system across the country is significantly aging. Much of the U.S. electric grid was built in the 1960s and '70s, and more than 70 percent of transmission lines are over 25 years old. So we see a lot of the transmission grid coming to the end of its life cycle, and it's going to need significant replacement. As we look at that, it is very important that we look at the needs going forward so that we don't just replace like-for-like, that we look at all available technology and look at ways to plan regionally so that we're not overbuilding and we're able to do so in a way that's as cost-effective as possible.

Right. And this was one of the consensus recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, correct? To tackle this problem.

I'm not familiar with that.

I think it was. I'm going to answer my own question. Dr. Mahan, I want to ask you about what I think is sometimes a false choice that is presented between grid reliability and the environment. Based on your testimony, it seems that we don't need to have such a false choice. Can you speak to how holistic approaches like integrated vegetation management reduce wildfire risk, improve grid reliability, and actually support biodiversity?

Yeah. When you showed the picture, when you put that picture up before, I saw that as opportunity. I saw that as an opportunity to manage habitat underneath that transmission line. But we do operate in this permitting landscape. So I am very sympathetic to the industry trying to get these habitats created because we know from an environmental perspective, you can achieve both. We have done this work, as I said, for 75 years across the country. You can manage for low-growing, what we call early successional habitat, dominated by native species. And we are seeing reduced maintenance costs. We are seeing long-term stability in those rights-of-way with vegetation. And we are seeing tremendous responses of biodiversity, including pollinator habitat. And I didn't say this in my testimony, but I also want to say it also allows for really deep community engagement because the community can get involved with sampling biodiversity, coming out and seeing the work that we're doing. But the permitting, I feel that. I'm very sensitive to that because even doing integrated vegetation management is going to require permitting. And my argument as an ecologist, if companies are doing the right thing, they should be provided some relief from some of these permitting. The 15 years that you said, that just is not tenable in my opinion.

Right. Now, there's a lot of talk about cutting trees as maybe the single solution to this challenge. I know there's a study at Cal Poly Humboldt in my district that found that tree felling and pruning, if it simply leaves debris on the ground, can actually worsen wildfire risk. But the kind of vegetation management you're advocating can reduce fuel loads.

You're actually changing the habitat. You're creating habitat that is not a forest under your transmission line. But all ecosystems in the United States have early successional habitats. They all have them. And so you are going to be managing for those under your rights-of-way, keeping trees out. So one of the things that our research looks at, and you can look at the publications, is how does a stable, low-growing community keep invasive species from germinating? It also keeps overstory trees from coming in and germinating as well.

Thank you very much. Yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Chairman, Mr. Westerman.

Thank you, Chair Hageman. Thank you again to the witnesses. And I could just take off on that previous discussion. That's fascinating to use early successional habitat to keep the corridor free from tall trees. So to me, that's innovation. But we've got a lot of transmission lines that we need to take care of across our country, as you all are very much aware. And we also know that the demands for electricity are going up at exponential rates. I think a hidden story that's not being told so much is we do have a lot of theoretical excess generating capacity right now. It's going to be absorbed up, but we've got to be able to move that electricity from one area to the other. And to do that, we have to have reliable transmission lines. And that's why this hearing is so important. Mr. Murray, your testimony describes the Resilient Corridor Decision Memo, which is intended to standardize management of NV Energy's corridors across both the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. You stated that because your facilities predate NEPA, the permitting process in the Humboldt-Toiyabe is akin to the process for work in a previously undisturbed area. My question is, does Section 512 of FLPMA distinguish between pre-NEPA and post-NEPA facilities?

Yeah, I don't believe it does. I believe it just says existing and new facilities, if I recall.

So what happened when NV Energy attempted to reconcile these inconsistent permitting processes?

Yeah, so we just continue to see a different interpretation of what they're supposed to do as far as issuing the permit. The point I'm trying to make, because NV Energy is engaged in constructing new transmission lines also, is often times it's actually easier to get a permit for the new line than it is to go work on the existing line. It can be quite frustrating. And the requirements that are placed on new construction get placed on, particularly a pre-NEPA line, which is already disturbed, right? And so a lot of that feels extraneous. There's not really a lot of protection that happens there.

That makes you scratch your head on when common sense left the room, which gets to my next question for Mr. Bowling. You shared a story about the Fairbanks Corridor project that took 15 years to receive approval for routine vegetation and other maintenance work, including from the State Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Anderson testified to similar delays stemming from historic preservation requirements. We're also aware of similar historic preservation challenges faced by other utilities. Behind me is a picture of the Fairbanks Corridor prior to approval of your project. Why should routine maintenance be delayed to study whether active electricity infrastructure has a historic significance?

Can you restate that again? Maybe I should just ask you, agree or disagree, should routine maintenance be delayed to study whether active electricity infrastructure has historic significance? Should routine... no, absolutely not.

Yeah. Do you think the average American believes that we should preserve the electric grid exactly as it was in the 1950s and '60s to preserve its historical character?

No. So much of technology has changed. I really appreciated the IBEW story too about the work that our very talented, hardworking linemen do and the tools that they deploy today are not the same as they were. We've introduced tools that make them safer, reduce hazards, but they need the space to get those tools into the work environment. And so maintaining good rights-of-way are really critical to that, to worker safety also.

So after 15 years of permitting, how long did it take you to do your project once it actually started?

All told, about eight weeks.

Wow. Like I said, it seems like common sense has left the room when we talk about a lot of these projects. So Mr. Howard, allegedly pictured behind me is one of your members' transmission corridors. I can barely, I think I can see it right here. The only place I've seen worse than that is flying over Puerto Rico in a helicopter and there's no right-of-way. It's just trees growing under the power line. Can you tell us about your efforts to establish safe clearance around those lines and time that it has taken to get Forest Service approval?

Yeah, this photo is from the Trinity National Forest. That is a corridor there, a very narrow corridor with 100-foot trees adjacent to it with many dying trees. The challenge is trying to first get an expanded corridor. The Forest Service did agree there needed to be an expanded corridor, but the utility there had lost all their wildfire insurance due to a historical fire. So the Forest Service was unable to give them the expanded corridor right-of-way agreement because they had no insurance, no wildfire insurance they had no ability to get it. We spent a long time working around that particular issue until it was finally agreed to approve an expanded corridor. We've been four years into the NEPA process with substantial funding for that, and we still don't have yet the permits to do the corridor expansion. ...that is a corridor there, a very narrow corridor with 100-foot trees adjacent to it, with many dying trees. The challenge is in trying to first get an expanded corridor. The Forest Service did agree that it needed to be an expanded corridor, but the utility there had lost all their wildfire insurance due to a historical fire. So the Forest Service was unable to give them the expanded corridor right-of-way agreement because they had no insurance, no wildfire insurance, they had no ability to get it. We spent a long time working around that particular issue until it was finally agreed to approve an expanded corridor. We've been four years into the NEPA process with substantial funding for that, and we still don't have yet the permits to do the corridor expansion.

That seems like a classic chicken and egg story. So thank you again to the witnesses. We could highlight the absurdity with this for many hours, but I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chair now recognizes Mr. Min for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I first wanted to direct my first question to Dr. Mahan. You're a professor of biology and environmental studies. As a former academic myself, thank you for your service to the next generation of advocates. You know, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the role that climate change is playing in increased fire risk.

So it's a combination, right? We're seeing increased fire risks. What's interesting is I talk to my students about prediction, model predictions, and this is one of the predictions of global climate models back when I was in graduate school in the early 90s, and we're seeing it.

And so what specifically is driving the increased fire risk from climate change?

Well, it's... but I want to get to that. So it's a combination. So we're seeing global climate change, increased fire risk, changes in our local climates, and also the health of the forests. And increased invasive species cannot be understated. And I've seen some of these sites, Mr. Howard here, I've seen some of them in California, and they are very prone to wildfire risk because of that.

So invasive species, a drier climate, a lot of things becoming like tinder. And I apologize we don't have more time. Five minutes is not really a lecture, unfortunately. And so I guess my follow-up question, I assume as we think about fire mitigation strategies, we also have to be thinking in the longer run about efforts to reduce emissions, carbon emissions, to try to reduce the scale and speed at which climate change is occurring. That's also a really important part of mitigating fire risk, right?

It is, but as I said earlier, it doesn't matter where your energy is being generated, even with renewables, we have to move it across this landscape.

Of course, but I think the point I would also just make is that a lot of the renewable energies that are displacing fossil fuels tend to require electric transmission, and so it adds more strain on the grid, it requires a significant investment. So just to echo a lot of the points made before, this is really, really important. And I just want to note that in China and other parts of the world, they are spending a lot of resources and quickly getting their electric transmission expanded rapidly. That is something that we here in the United States have neglected. Now, in my home state of California, of course, we've had an enormous number of fires. They have jeopardized communities all over the state, whether in Northern California, in Southern California, the LA fires, we've had every year we have fires in my part of Orange County. And so my question for you, Ms. Hayes, is what impact does that have on the price of utilities for average consumers?

The impact of wildfires on the cost...

Yeah.

It is making it more expensive for customers in a number of ways. One is it's making it more difficult for utilities to get insurance. That is a cost that flows through. It raises borrowing costs. Those flow through directly through to rates. And also we've seen, well, and specifically to that, we've seen credit ratings drop. Public Service Company of Colorado's ratings, credit ratings in others, so that increases cost of borrowing.

And I know that in California, the California Public Utilities Commission has raised rates a number of times, or authorized rate increases a number of times, both for prospective insurance but also to repay some of the costs that they've incurred in litigation and elsewhere.

Absolutely. And in Hawaii, there are entities that are not able to sign power purchase agreements because their bankers basically don't believe in the creditworthiness of the utility due to these increased liabilities due to wildfires.

Now, I guess the follow-up question to this, in California, and I think we are one of the major places we've faced many billions, if not trillions at this point, in insurance costs due to wildfires, and one of the responses has been to underground a lot of our electric transmission. I guess I want, from a cost-benefit analysis, how does that compare in your mind to some of the alternative, like reconductoring technologies out there, just from a cost-benefit, because these costs do get passed on to consumers?

They do. I've heard estimates of undergrounding being two times or more. Reconductoring, there can be... it can reduce the risk of wildfire and also increase the capacity. So certainly it's on a case-by-case basis, but it needs to be carefully evaluated.

And the last point I want to make, and Dr. Mahan, going back to you if you want to comment on this, feel free if you have time. I just want to note that California has a very diverse ecosystem, and in my part of Orange County, we face much different risks than the traditional forest fire risks in Northern California. Brush fires are really the thing that, particularly combined with the Santa Ana winds that happen every year, and so the strategies are different in addressing fire mitigation, but transmission protection, transmission shutoff, things like that, still very important. Dr. Mahan, if you have any last thoughts here.

And I would just argue that if you have a native community that's adapted to fire, it's much more resilient to that, and we're not going to get these catastrophic fires if those communities are protected.

Thank you very much for holding this hearing, Madam Chair. It's an important topic, and with that, I yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Bentz for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you the panel for being here. Dr. Mahan, I didn't think I heard you say that part of the problem we're facing is the massive buildup of trees in the forest. I think in the years I've been on this committee, we've heard there are literally thousands of trees per acre when there should be something like less than 100. And thus the idea should be, shouldn't it, that we would do something to reduce that amount of risk?

Yeah, there's this history, as we all know, of a successful history of fire suppression in the West in particular, and that has led to... fires were a natural part of ecosystems in the West, so it's led to a buildup of fuels. Removing those fuels is not so simple. We know that there's cases where we have prescribed burns that have turned into catastrophic fires. So I personally, I am not a forest ecologist, but I think that I see all these pictures, right, that you're showing me with these tall trees, and I just see ways in which we can manage the habitat around those rights-of-way, you know, and keep them from being resistant for tall trees infringing on the rights-of-way.

So if I may, I did have the benefit of visiting Arkansas with the chairman, and I resisted the temptation of talking about how modest the size the trees are out here as compared to back on the West where I live, and we actually have real trees out there. And we also have 30 million acres of them just in my state of Oregon. And so when I hear talking about trees as though it's a garden, I go, no. So thank you. I want to move to Mr. Anderson. This conversation can be broken into three parts. There's the danger, there's the cause of the danger, and then there's the solution to the danger. So you have some great pictures on the fourth page of your testimony that illustrates the danger totally clearly. These massive, huge trees immediately adjacent to power lines. And when you and I toured your little town of La Pine, which was almost lost to the Darlene 3 fire, we went out and drove along and looked down those corridors, and it was ridiculous how close the trees are to the line. So tell... that's the problem. Tell us the cause of the problem. Why are we facing this? And by the way, going back to the fact we have 30 million acres of trees and hundreds and hundreds of miles of corridor, what in the world can we do to try to fix it? And by the way, I'm going to run out of time, but I'm trying to get to the fix for us. But before we go there, define the problem again. You've mentioned it three or four times, say it again.

So the problem is the permitting. It's getting the process through, identifying the problem that we've already identified, and having the Forest Service give us the authority to actually remove those trees.

And before we leave that point, it was asserted by the ranking member that somehow this might be because of the reduction in the number of people working for the Forest Service. Yet that Darlene fire occurred in 2024, June. And according to the records I have seen, you started to ask for permission almost immediately thereafter to try to remove the dangerous trees that still were along power lines. That was in 2024. There had been no reductions. In fact, I think we had the highest number of people working at the Forest Service in history in 2024. So share with us, were you asking for help before the reductions and you were not getting it?

We have been asking for the help before the reductions.

For how many years?

It goes back 30 years. This goes back to the first testimony that was given by Midstate 30 years ago on the same issues that we're having today.

Let's go to the solution, and you talk about the solution on the top of page four of your testimony. You reference the Fix Our Forests Act. What in it that is would help get around this permitting delay?

If we can get the permissions to go ahead and manage our forests very proactively in cooperation with the federal agencies and have a permit that allows us to do our job and go make our rights-of-way safe for what is there to protect the infrastructure, we can accomplish great things together with the Forest Service. We believe there's an opportunity to work together.

Right. And this to me, this is the reason we're having this hearing today is to call this out again and also to talk about, as you've tried and done a good job of pointing out, the incredible allocation of risk to the ratepayers when we don't get this fixed. Because that's exactly what ends up happening under our legal system in Oregon. You, just like you said, are taking this incredible risk, and it's all because you can't take these trees, a few of the millions of billions of trees out. I deeply appreciate you making the effort, all of you actually, but you in particular since you're from my district, for coming out here for today. So thank you so much. Yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Maloy for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Baker, you probably knew I was going to ask you questions. We haven't had much snow in Utah this year. Just as a quick aside, I think it's interesting that people out here panic when they get two inches of snow. We panic if we only get two inches of snow. But winters like this usually mean a lot of fires in the summer. On a year like this, how do delays in hazard tree removal increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire? Because we're not talking theoretical right now. This is something that we're probably facing this year.

Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Delays absolutely will increase the risk of wildfires, and the ability to do proactive vegetation management we see as the best way to reduce that risk. So that's why we're strong advocates for the CatExes that have been proposed in the Fix Our Forests Act. We are very concerned about the drought conditions, not just for wildfire, but also for hydroelectric generation that I know you know well.

So am I. And Mr. Anderson covered it a little bit, but I just want to have you reiterate this. In a scenario where a hazard tree falls on a power line, who ends up being liable for the resultant fire?

It tends to be the utilities, and that is our concern with it. We want to be able to remove those trees, understand that we can remove them, and we seek that that ambiguity be eliminated through legislation.

So through our regulatory program, we're putting utilities in a catch-22 where we need power. We need you to move power. Utilities have to go across public land, especially in states like Utah where we have so much public land. And then we make it hard to maintain the corridors. Mr. Arhos did a good job of talking about what that does to the people who are out maintaining the lines and the risk to human life. ...where we need power. We need you to move power. Utilities have to go across public land, especially in states like Utah where we have so much public land. And then we make it hard to maintain the corridors. Mr. Arhos did a good job of talking about what that does to the people who are out maintaining the lines and the risk to human life. And then we make the utility companies liable if the obvious and inevitable result of that happens. Regulations are supposed to help minimize, mitigate, and prevent risks to life and property. And if they're not going to do that, they should at least create consistency and efficiency. I mean, that's the purpose of regulations, to make it so that people can live together side by side and know what to expect out of their government and not harm each other. And I think we as Congress owe it to UAMPS and to the Americans and even to the agencies we're talking about to review regulations and make sure they're working. Otherwise, we run the risk of having a regulatory regime where it's the cure that's worse than the disease we set out to cure. I don't know if you can use that twice in the same sentence. And I think just to make sure that we're putting a bow on before Mr. Crank anchors this, I was afraid I was going to be the anchor. What we're talking about here is that we have regulations that are already in place and they're not working. We have to fix them and make sure they're working for people. And that's what Fix Our Forests is about. And to that point, Mr. Murray, I want to come to you. So NV Energy is regulated by the Nevada PUC. And if the PUC directs you to mitigate wildfire risks, but then federal land managers delay the approvals, how do you reconcile those mandates?

So it's a challenge for sure. At the end of the day, this is our top priority, so we're going to do whatever we can to try and mitigate as much risk as we can. But I do think that to the extent that we can continue to work with these federal land managers to find ways to anticipate some of their questions, that's really the position that we're in right now is trying to anticipate what they need, provide resources where we can because we, as my fellow panelists have talked about, we just cannot afford to continue this risk. So where we can, we're going to mitigate.

Thank you. Chairman Westerman referred to this earlier as a chicken or egg problem, and I think it's more of a regulatory catch-22 where you're darned if you don't and danged if you do. And meanwhile, you're trying to provide power to ratepayers. And so I'm almost out of time. I'm going to skip a couple of my questions and just end with something Mr. Howard said that I thought was really profound. You said in your testimony that sometimes you're forced to build back the way it was, and that creates hazards, which seems like the problem we created regulations to solve so that you don't have to just keep doing things the way they were, you can do things better. And then you also said timely mitigation equals safety. And I just don't want that point to get lost in all of this. We're talking about costs to taxpayers, but we're also talking about safety and we're talking about ecosystems. And good regulation should be trying to protect all of that and not just creating a maze that you can't find your way through. And I am out of time, so I will yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Maloy. The chair now recognizes Mr. Crank for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it, and my apologies for not being here the whole time. As usual around here, we schedule several hearings at the same time and we bounce back and forth, so my apologies. It's been over a year since the House passed the Fix Our Forests Act, and in that time, Colorado has experienced its worst wildfire season since 2020. We've had more than 200,000 acres that have burned statewide since we passed the Fix Our Forests Act. The House moved this legislation in a bipartisan way, yet we're still waiting on our colleagues in the Senate. That delay carries real consequences for our communities and communities like mine in Colorado. This is a very real risk for Colorado Springs, which I represent, has one of the largest wildland-urban interfaces in the state. More than 32,000 acres of our community and nearly a quarter of our population lives in areas directly exposed to wildfire risk. This isn't just a public safety issue, it's an affordability crisis because as this committee has examined, as wildfire severity increases, the cost of repairing or rebuilding homes rises. And it directly drives up insurance costs for our families. The same dynamic applies to utility bills. When vegetation management plans on federal lands are delayed and when critical wildfire mitigation projects are not approved in a timely manner, utility companies face higher costs. These costs are ultimately passed on to ratepayers. So to the witnesses representing utility companies, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you all don't like having to raise prices on your customers. The House-passed version of FOFA contains critical provisions to help streamline the permitting process for wildfire mitigation projects and speeds up the approval of vegetation management plans. This is important for allowing utilities to do the work necessary to protect their assets and our communities from elevated wildfire risk. Congress fails to pass a lot of things in a timely manner, but this is one that is needed right now. And I have a question for Mr. Bowling. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association shared with the committee an example from the Mountain Parks Electric, Inc. about a federally funded wildfire mitigation project for its power lines in Colorado. I understand MPEI's permit application was submitted in August of 2022 and is the only hurdle to initiating this project. Can you update the committee on the history and status of this project?

Thank you for the question. Not being the utility that I work at, I can't speak to it too terribly much, but I can tell you I'm aware of it. And I think it's a prime example of needing timely permitting approvals so that we can depend on our federal investments and protect our communities both physically and financially. That's as I understand it, it's a thing that needs to get addressed quickly, otherwise they risk jeopardizing their grant funds.

You know, years of bureaucratic delay for federally funded projects is just unacceptable. MPEI should not have to wait that long for a special use permit. Colorado's Front Range cannot afford to wait another year for forest management tools included in FOFA. The Pike National Forest has a pine beetle infestation that is expected to cause massive tree loss. My concern is that this will not only increase fuel loads from dying trees, but also lead to a growing number of hazardous trees that threaten critical power and water infrastructure and that cannot be removed in a timely manner by a utility or the Forest Service. Mr. Baker, my community utility company, Colorado Springs Utilities, testified before this committee on the importance of FOFA and highlighted that not every forest yields a merchantable product capable of offsetting the cost of harvest or would generate interest for a timber sale. What kind of barriers does the Forest Service create when it requires a timber sale as a condition of hazardous tree removal for a utility that is simply trying to be responsible managers of its assets?

That is absolutely a barrier. We have other members, I spoke to Los Alamos that has the same problem where they're required to have a timber sale, and that just does not seem like the appropriate measure to deal with removing timber from any sort of electric utility corridor.

Would just very quickly, would the provision of the House-passed FOFA that allow hazardous tree removal without a timber sale meaningfully reduce these delays and allow utilities to act on safety risk in a timeframe that matches wildfire conditions?

Yes, absolutely.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, in Florida, we know hurricanes. Hurricane Milton, we saw about 923,000 people lose power for a little bit. It was a pretty powerful storm. Another 1.1 million with Hurricane Helene. We call them together a Hilton, Hurricane Hilton. And as a result, I ended up co-sponsoring a bill that's bipartisan with Reps. Buchanan and Steube, the Disaster Zone Energy Affordability Investment Act, which would give utilities the flexibility they need to restore service faster following major disasters, allowing them to pass on savings to their customers. In addition, we saw with Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico is still, still recovering from the absolute disaster that both Maria and Irma wreaked on the island. I'm of Puerto Rican descent, as are about one-quarter of my constituents, and so we are following how it has been taking forever to get this grid restored. And we've seen also rollback of $450 million in grid resilience funds that was in the IRA from the Trump administration, including $365 million for solar plant projects. Obviously, this is a deep concern as well. But I wanted to get to where we are right now. Secretary Mayorkas is requiring $100,000 contracts and over to be approved personally for after disasters through FEMA, and we've seen them unnecessarily freeze FEMA funds right now. Ms. Hayes, it'd be great to get an understanding if you restricted every contract to $100,000 or more when you have a natural disaster, would that slow down recovery after a disaster, you think?

That's not an area in which I have expertise, but that does sound like a challenge.

Well, what about you, Dr. Mahan? Would that slow things down a little bit?

I'm not sure what you mean by personally approve, like she has to approve them?

Yes.

I would imagine that would take time unless that's all she was going to devote her time to. That it seems like it would slow things down. I don't know what her time like is in a day, though.

And I see we have from Mr. Randy Howard, Northern California Power Agency. Have you all seen delays in getting FEMA funds in? I know at least in your state, there was some major wildfires that affected the area.

I think historically we've always seen delays in processing of FEMA funds. That isn't anything new. I'm not familiar with any of the recent activity. Our utility itself has not had some recent experience, fortunately, to have to draw upon FEMA funds. I do want to point out Ranking Member Hoyle has the POWERS Act, which is an important piece of legislation that both American Public Power supports and I think NRECA also supports that would provide some provisions as to being able to build back better once a disaster has come through or wildfires come through associated with FEMA funding. And we think those are critical elements. It still needs the categorical exclusions to allow us to build back better instead of having to go through the environmental impact reports to put in a more resilient system once it's been damaged.

Absolutely. And we dealt with that after Hurricane Maria when we had exemptions to the Stafford Act for some of those as well. So I'm familiar with it. And with that, I yield back. Thanks.

Thank you. Before we wrap up the hearing today, I have a couple of unanimous consents. First, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the Electric Utility Sector Wildfire Priorities document developed jointly by the American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Edison Electric Institute. So ordered. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from Mountain Parks Electric, Inc. in Colorado that highlights the bureaucratic bottleneck currently blocking a federally funded wildfire mitigation project. So ordered. I again want to thank all of the witnesses for your attendance at today's hearing and your extremely valuable and enlightening testimony. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing if they submit them. Under Rule Committee Rule 3, members of the committee must submit such questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Friday, February 27. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. And without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.