On the recordSeptember 25, 2015
By its terms, the amendment brands infeasible--and, thus, barred from further evaluation--project alternatives that do not appear at the outset of the review process to adequately address risks associated with flooding, wildfire, and climate change. With all due respect, that puts the cart before the horse. The bill is intended to allow the review of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible. It is entirely possible that, during the course of review, a technically and economically feasible alternative that appears initially to be inadequate to address these risks could, on further review, be found to be adequate or to be improved to be adequate. It might even ultimately be found to be the best alternative under review. Why should we prematurely end the evaluation of alternatives that could ultimately prove adequate with regard to these types of risks? This does not prevent the review process. What it does prevent is someone waiting to get in at the last moment, which has been 5 or 6 years later, to jam the system up in court, therefore crushing jobs and letting regulation run rampant. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
