Manufacturing and electric co‑op leaders tell Congress permitting delays raise costs and threaten projects
Loading...
Summary
Executives from Nucor and Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation told a House subcommittee that unclear permitting processes, duplicated reviews and prolonged timelines have delayed projects, driven up costs and can pass expenses to ratepayers. Witnesses urged clearer timelines, better agency coordination and expanded state roles to speed work
Industry and utility witnesses told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Feb. 11 that permitting uncertainty under the Clean Water Act and overlapping federal reviews are delaying projects, raising costs and discouraging investment.
Noah Hanners, executive vice president at Nucor Corporation, described the company's planned sheet mill in Apple Grove, West Virginia, saying the project — originally planned as a $3.5 billion investment — faced "onerous" permitting that required coordination with multiple federal agencies "with little direction and unclear timelines." Hanners said the project will employ roughly 800 full‑time manufacturing jobs at the mill, about 2,000 contracting teammates at peak construction and that Nucor had already hired 300 West Virginia teammates.
Buddy Hasten, president and CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC), told the panel that his cooperative sought a Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination and a Clean Water Act permit for a transmission switching station. "We did not receive a permit decision within the 9 month time frame initially predicted by the corps, resulting in the delayed start for our project," Hasten said, describing additional costs and construction schedule impacts before the Corps later determined a permit was not required.
Members and witnesses repeatedly pointed to duplicative reviews — for example, cultural, endangered species and wetlands reviews — being run by both federal agencies and state offices, adding months to project schedules. AECC described an example where the same cultural survey went to the State Historic Preservation Office, tribes and then was repeated by the Corps, adding "2 to 4 months" in that phase alone.
Witnesses recommended policy changes to reduce delays: clearer, enforceable timelines for agency decisions; greater use of general and categorical permits for limited‑impact work; expanded state assumption of federal programs; and tighter, faster judicial review to limit last‑minute legal challenges that can extend permitting timelines.
Why it matters: Delays can impose large carrying costs on projects that must store expensive equipment and hire staff before construction starts. Hasten and other witnesses said those costs ultimately are passed to consumers or local members — "every cost I get ultimately gets passed directly on to those members," Hasten said of AECC.
Members pressed for practical fixes. Representative Crawford and others asked for clearer federal‑state coordination to avoid duplicate NEPA and Corps reviews. Witnesses pointed to both federal and local examples where streamlining and state assumption produced faster outcomes.
No formal actions were taken at the hearing. The subcommittee kept the record open for additional written materials and asked witnesses for follow‑up documents.
