 So what you have in front of you, is that the first document? Yes, but I don't know if it's the first one that's on your website, the first one we're going to discuss. Yep. So I'm guessing Laura's going to be joining us since we're at 31. So just by way of introduction, the president had issued an executive order last week in regard to energy infrastructure. And I personally have gotten a number of questions about this. And instead of just talking Luke's time to get a personal kind of rundown on this, I'm the head of chair of the committee. So I ask Luke if you could come in here and speak to this executive order and to the extent that it may affect some of the things that we're looking at here. So thank you for joining us, Luke. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. For the record, Luke Marlin, director of legislative counsel and chief counsel of the General Assembly, has asked to come in today and review with you two executive orders issued by President Trump. So to set the stage, don't forget that there is a hierarchy of law, if you will. The Constitution of our country, statute, federal statute, or for that matter, some is the state statute. Regulations promulgated by federal agency pursuant to federal law, agency guidance, and executive orders. So that will be important as we go through what impact this executive order really has short and medium term. So current law is the Clean Water Act, which is in 33 USC, United States Code 1341 is the section we're going to talk about. It's often called section 401. That's sort of the phrase that most people know it as. And what it does is it requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in discharge into the navigable waters of the United States to provide the federal agency with a certification from the state that the discharge does not violate the Clean Water Act. There also is language that if a state fails to, within a reasonable time, issue this certification, not to exceed one year, the certification requirement is deemed a way. So what this section of federal law does is it requires a state to certify that a proposed project that might impact the waters of the United States does not violate the Clean Water Act. So it gives a state a role in this process. This is a federal statute. And that's important for what I'm going to mention later on. Now, the executive order you have on the screen, promoting energy, infrastructure, and economic growth, was issued on April 10th. And it does five main things. Number one requires the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to control with states and Indian tribes and then begin the process of amending its rules. It requires the EPA to update its guidance. It requires other federal agencies to work with the EPA to update their rules and guidance. It has provisions concerning the transportation of liquefied natural gas. And then it requires various reports. So let's now walk through the text of the executive order. Section one sets forth the purpose. I will not summarize all of this. Don't hesitate to read it if you wish. Section two, it gives the policy objectives that inform the subsequent sections. And essence, section two is sort of similar to findings that you may have in your proposed bills or your statutes. It gives a reason why this executive order is being issued or its goals. In section two, perhaps the most important ones are A, C, and D. So A talks about efficient permitting processes and procedures that employ a single point of accountability and avoid duplication and redundant reviews. C concerns timely action on infrastructure projects. And D concerns increased regulatory certainty. So these are the objectives of the executive order. Section three states that it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to review current regulations, its current regulations, and guidance concerning section 401, which I summarized for you at the very beginning of my presentation, and to focus on the scope of state review and the various timelines involved and how long the process takes. So once again, I will read for you the whole thing. But the gist of this is that the EPA will look at current regulations and guidance as to those issues. Under section 3B, it states upon the completion of this review process, the EPA shall, no later than 60 days after the date of this order, issue new guidance, so this is once again internal guidance, to the states and authorized tribes, then under C upon the completion of the review that we just discussed, the EPA will publish new proposed rules as to the Clean Water Act. So they do a review, they consult with the states, they consult with the Indian tribes, they issue new guidance, and then they issue new proposed rules. The issuance of the proposed rules or new proposed rules is supposed to be within 120 days of the date of this executive order. And then under D, there's a requirement that other federal agencies will update their guidance and their rules to conform to the changes that the EPA has undertaken. Section 4 concerns a transportation study and updated their rules to allow liquefied natural gas to be transported via rail. And then section 5, I think it's in 5B, is requires the Department of Labor to report on retirement plans and proxy voting as to investments in the energy sector. So something very, very different, but it's requiring the Department of Labor to report on the use of proxy by retirement plans as to energy sector investments. Section 6 deals with energy rights away in federal land. And then in section 7, you have a number of reports. For example, in section 7, there's a report on values to the transportation of energy to the Northeast, New England states. There's reporting limitations to the export of coal, oil, and natural gas from the West Coast of the US. And in section 8, there's a requirement to have a report on what assistance can be given by the federal government and these agencies to states to implement the goals of this executive order. And then finally, in section 9, there's a report on encouraging economic growth in Appalachia. So I'm going through those very, very quickly because I don't think that's really the heart of the executive order nor the heart of this committee's concerns. I wanted to quickly talk about the other executive order and then pull the threads together about what impact these might have on energy-citing decisions. But before I move to the second executive order, are there any questions about what I've covered so far? This covers federal permitting, right? Is that only interstate? Well, this executive order covers the Clean Water Act. And I think it's really targeting the state role in certifying a project's compliance with the Clean Water Act. If you remember, I began by talking about how the states have a role in certifying that if any project is having an impact on the navigable waters that the Clean Water Act, the federal laws be complied with, so there's a state role in that approval process. And it seems that this executive order is focused on how long that takes, whether there's redundancy or confusion or lack of clarity in those processes. Potentially related question. Sure. So in various parts it seemed like it's requiring rulemaking within 90 days? It sure does. I'll get to that in a moment. I think that's a very tight timeline. I don't know if that will be achieved or not. Do you want me to call on the members of the chair? Do you want to? If there's any time, I think you were next. So again, anything that's being done with possible infrastructure in the state without going outside the state boundaries, does that still apply? So this is not impact state law. It does not impact issuance of a certificate of public good, for example, from the Public Utilities Commission, which we talked about and witnesses have discussed. This is only relevant to, well, the beginning of the CO is only relevant to the Clean Water Act. There's other requirements about reports and other things. Just to clarify, you said early on about the state. States have a certain amount of time to certify that a proposal does not negatively impact. And that, if they don't, then that's a team blade. But can they say, can they issue a statement that it does negatively affect? Oh, that it does? Yes. They can refuse to certify it. So as long as they meet the deadline for saying whatever they have to say, then, OK, that wasn't clear, because it's the way you said it was, OK, thank you. And I am not very knowledgeable about the Clean Water Act. Michael O'Grady in our office is expert on that. So if you want to get more into the weeds about what that process is, or how long it normally takes, or the steps, you'd be glad to come and tell us. I just want to make sure that the state of the state found that it was a terrible harm if the state could say that as well. So let's jump to the second executive order issued on the same date. This one is considering the issuance of permits with respect to facilities and land transportation crossing at international boundaries. In other words, Canada or Mexico. And this EL is a little shorter than the last one. And once again, section two has policy, which are, in essence, the findings about what this executive order is meant to achieve or the problems it's meant to address. And it talks again about efficient permitting processes in A, timely action on infrastructure projects in C, and increased regulatory certainty in D. So it echoes some of the same concerns as the other executive order. I'm sorry, I was looking at the first executive order when I said that. My apologies. So let me jump back. So section two does, actually, which one do I have on the screen? I think I might have confused. But I second one on the screen, yeah. So there's a purpose of section one. And then section two jumps into cross-supporter infrastructure presidential permit application procedures. And what this executive order does is it takes, it requires that the process for determining whether, or recommending whether, a president should issue a permit for a project that crosses an international boundary, whether it's a pipeline or some other kind of project or a bridge, for example, that that information goes to the Secretary of State's office. The Secretary of State has made the point person to get that information, to obtain other information, to reach a preliminary recommendation that they would give to the president. And then the president would make a decision as to whether to grant that permit or not. It also revokes some older executive orders from 2004 and 1968. And so it doesn't change the process from what I can tell from reading it, but it seems to be an attempt to centralize the fact finding the gathering information in the Secretary of State's office and then to set timelines for that office to reach a determination to make a recommendation to the president. I don't think this second executive order is as important or relevant as the first one. Reading the news, I don't know if it's accurate. It seems to be focused on Excel pipeline and getting that approved to cross the boundaries, the borders. Yeah, that's a good question I have there. And this may be a real stretch. But I'm not even sure that we have two pipelines that cross the Canadian border, I believe? We have, yes, I think the Mon-Natural gas is their pipeline. And then the one we discussed earlier in the Northeast Kingdom from Portland, the Portland Pipeline. So those are already existing? Yes. And I'm wondering to the extent that this, in a roundabout way, could potentially affect either of those. And again, I'm reaching here. But the one that goes through the Northeast Kingdom, if the flow of that pipeline is reversed, would that be open to any regulatory? I don't know the answer to that question. I'm sorry. I'm trying to get the information I don't know. So takeaways from both of these executive orders are, first of all, they do not. They cannot change federal statute. So for example, the Clean Water Act is still in effect. The language is still in effect. This executive order does not change that law. What the first executive order does is it asks the EPA to begin the process of changing their own internal guidance, which I remember is lower down in the hierarchy than the regulations or the law and statute, and then to begin the process of proposing changes to their regulations. It does have very tight timelines to do that. Those timelines might be optimistic because it requires public comment. It usually is a long drawn out process even after the new regulations or change regulations have been proposed and commented on and gone through the process and ultimately adopted. It is very likely that there'll be litigation. So these timelines in the first executive order seem quite optimistic to actually have new regulations in place. And even if there's new regulations in place, they don't change a federal statute. They may have an impact, but they don't change the actual federal statute. And these are, with regard to the EPA, these are just Clean Water Act? The regulations are in the beginning sections are pertaining to the Clean Water Act. Yes, that section I mentioned, 401, that gives the states the ability to certify. There's other things to remember about transportation. Yeah, I saw that. I got that. I just wanted to make sure I knew that. In the second executive order, it talks about presidential permit applications. I'm not familiar with that term. What is the presidential permit as opposed to commerce or? I'm not very familiar with it either. So I'm sorry. I think you were granted up first. Do you know if the courts have made any decisions about how precipitation affects navigable waterways? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe we could get in. Michael might or even Ellen might. I don't. And just to drive home the point, this doesn't override any prior court decisions either. Once again, this is beginning a regulatory process that may take a number of years and is not going to make any changes short term. Do you have a question? Yeah, I just wanted to make about just as a point of information, the National Conference of State Legislators sent out a notification yesterday that the EPA invited state legislators and governors to participate in the webinar tomorrow at 3 PM Eastern time, presenting a summary of the feedback the agency has received thus far. And will provide an opportunity to hear state input on provisions of the executive order that may require additional clarifications as it retains to section 401 and related federal regulations and provisions. I think Senator Bray is planning on participating in that. I read prior guidance from NCSL that one of you forwarded to me. I basically agree with what they stated. I mean, it seemed to be accurate. Up in the Northeast Kingdom, there's a section of the Mississaug River as well as Trout River that have a further wild and scenic rivers as a nation, which has its own guidelines around anything that impedes the free-flowing character of the river or its scenic and natural values has to be evaluated through a Section 7 review. And I'm just wondering if that would affect that particular federal designation as well. I don't know. And I can find out. That might be Michael or Grady. I don't know if Ellen would know the answer to that. But we can circle back to you. That doesn't seem to be mentioned in these EO's. We'll check. Any questions for me? So how do you, as far as the bills under the two bills under discussion relating to fossil fuel pipelines miscommittee, does this have any impact? Impact on people's opinion or policy, I don't make a comment. But this isn't impacting anything short term. It doesn't change anything short term. It doesn't change federal regulations short term. It may, after they go through the process, the EPA may change its regulations. That could have an impact. But guests may also have to get through litigation after they propose their changes. And none of it changes existing federal law. So the impact would be if EPA rules or regs change in the future, having gone through the process before challenges. I think it will take quite a bit of time to shake out and see what, if any, changes are proposed, adopted, survive litigation, down the road, what, if any, impact that has. It's no impact short term. An EPA rule and a state statute came into direct conflict. Do you have any insight on how that would play out? It might be a preemption issue. I have to look at the federal law. So federal law often trumps state law. It depends. So I'd like to see, but it's hard to say in general. I think just from what I've read in news accounts, one of the things that has occurred with some frequency in New York state in the last couple of years is the executive branch there using the state's power, Trump's 415 Water Act, has slowed down or refused pipeline applications in the state based on the clean water act, in my understanding. And with my sense is there's some frustration in the executive branch from Washington of the use of the clean water act to stall or to prevent some of these pipelines going forward. I think that's one of the things that's driven this executive order. Any other questions? One of the, I'm just trying to picture what would be on a conveyor belt process. That's good, good catch. I don't know. It was a, I noticed that too. I don't know. Nicole Leroy. And there was also a new story that I read that I want to check in with the Attorney General's office. I think that there's a group of Attorney Generals around the country, I'm gonna say it doesn't, that have raised particular issues with this executive order. I don't know about the lawsuit and the state. I think Vermont has joined that concern. I didn't find anything on the AG's website, but we'll write the things we can on that. Good. So are there any follow-up questions that we know? As I told you, Michael, who is the expert on clean water act itself, it could give you more background if you want to go there. Glad to testify, but let us know if you need more info. Do you have a question? Just confirming the question that Robin asked. So with regard to the bills that are in front of us right now, this is right now not in conflict potentially with the passage of those, but could be sometime in the future. That's not what he said, but I'm trying to grapple with. Not quite what he asked. I'm trying to reframe your answer. Yeah, you were. I noticed that. I would say it doesn't change applicable federal law. It doesn't change applicable federal regulation right now. You let the process on, I think age 51 and these other bills you're dealing with really are dealing with state law. So I don't see the impact. So is there anything that you think we should be thinking about with regards to this in consideration of those bills? You might want to hear from other witnesses. I think it's very early in the process. Of this? Yes. You at this point, clearly, you know what the point of view or objective of the executive order is that pretty clear. What's actually going to come out of it? What changed to their guidance? Much less what changed to their regulations? Much less what impact that may have? Much less attempts to change the federal statute? All of that is unknown. So it's how do we predict the future? I think you have to see what happens. Now, there may be other witnesses who are more knowledgeable about the theory disagree and you should hear from them. But I don't see this very preliminary executive order having any impact or the next year or two. I think you have to let the process play out. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us at 30 to go through S95, which we've already had a walk through on and some amendments that may be.