[Senate Hearing 112-133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-133
MCCONNELL AND WODDER NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF CHARLES MCCONNELL, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY (FOSSIL ENERGY) AND REBECCA WODDER, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS
__________
JULY 28, 2011
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-995 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
McConnell, Charles D., Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy, Department of Energy................................... 8
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
Wodder, Rebecca, Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks............................................. 4
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 51
MCCONNELL AND WODDER NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. OK. Why don't we get started?
The committee is meeting this morning to consider the
nominations of Charles D. McConnell to be the Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy and Rebecca Wodder to be
the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Mr.
McConnell has served as the Chief Operating Officer in the
Office of Fossil Energy since March. Before coming to the
Department of Energy, he spent 2 years as a Vice President at
Battelle Energy Technology and 31 years before that at Praxair.
Praxair, Inc., a Fortune 300 company that produces
industrial gases.
Ms. Wodder has served as President and Chief Executive
Officer of American Rivers, one of the nation's leading
conservation organizations, for the past 16 years. She also
held senior posts at the Wilderness Society before joining
American Rivers. She was a legislative assistant to our former
colleague, Senator Gaylord Nelson, from 1978 to 1981.
Both nominees bring a great deal of knowledge and
experience to the offices to which the president has nominated
them. I strongly support both nominations. I'm delighted to
welcome both nominees to the committee this morning.
Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for any statement she'd
like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Good morning to you, Mr. McConnell and Ms. Wodder. I
appreciate both of you and your willingness to stand before
this committee as you seek to serve your country. I am pleased
to support Mr. McConnell's nomination to be Assistant Secretary
of Energy.
Mr. McConnell, I think your even and thoughtful approach
makes you the type of nominee that both Republicans and
Democrats can come together and support. Now, that said, I do
have some important questions about DOE's Fossil Energy
missions and how you intend to restore this office to an
engaged and assertive entity. I have some concerns about both
Alaska and national programs which, I think, are falling
behind.
Ms. Wodder, I must say that along with several of my
Republican colleagues on this panel, there have been concerns
that have been noted about your past statements and history at
American Rivers and also with the Wilderness Society. While I
can certainly understand that as the CEO of an organization
that you do make statements on behalf of that organization, I
do believe that you must be associated with and stand behind
those comments.
I am particularly concerned about what seemed to be
foregone conclusions against natural gas and hydroelectric
development and, more generally, economic growth. As I'm sure
that you know, hydroelectric power is critically, critically
important for my home State of Alaska. About 25 percent of our
energy does come from hydro. In the southeastern part of the
State where I was born and raised, it is everything. It is
critical for us. Many communities throughout our State rely
almost exclusively on hydro power where it provides a clean,
renewable, alternative to diesel power generation.
It would appear that throughout your career, Ms. Wodder,
you have unequivocally advocated for the removal of dams. As
Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, you would
play a crucial role in the permitting of many large
hydroelectric projects throughout the country. That would be of
concern to my fellow Alaskans, as our State has plans at the
moment to construct the largest new dam built in the United
States in decades. This is the 800 megawatt Susitna Dam
Project. The Governor has just committed state funding for
that. It's something that, as Alaskans, we look to, again, as
an opportunity for an energy source.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing and hearing
again from both of the witnesses. But I think it is important
that I express my concerns clearly about Ms. Wodder's
nomination.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Under our rules here in the committee that apply to all
nominees, we require that they be sworn in connection with
their testimony. Could each of you stand and raise your right
hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Wodder. I do.
Mr. McConnell. I do.
The Chairman. You may be seated. Thank you.
Before you begin your statements, let me ask 3 questions
that we address to each nominee that comes before this
committee. The first question is: Will you be available to
appear before this committee and other congressional committees
to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of
concern to the Congress?
Ms. Wodder.
Ms. Wodder. I will.
Mr. McConnell.
Mr. McConnell. I will.
The Chairman. The second of our 3 questions is: Are you
aware of any personal holdings, investments, or interests that
could constitute a conflict of interest or create the
appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and
assume the office to which you've been nominated by the
president?
Ms. Wodder.
Ms. Wodder. My investments, personal holdings, and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Mr. McConnell.
Mr. McConnell. My investments, personal holdings, and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Thank you both for those statements. The
third and final question we ask all nominees is: Are you
involved or do you have any assets that are held in a blind
trust?
Ms. Wodder.
Ms. Wodder. No.
The Chairman. Mr. McConnell.
Mr. McConnell. No, sir.
The Chairman. Very well. At this point, we always invite
nominees to introduce anyone they brought with them that they
would like to introduce, family members or others.
Ms. Wodder, did you have anyone with you you wanted to
introduce?
Ms. Wodder. Yes, Chairman Bingaman. I am joined by my
husband, James Van Erden, and our daughter, Jayme. Another
daughter, Jennifer, can't be here with us today because she is
in Panama serving with the Peace Corps.
The Chairman. We welcome them, the ones who are here. Thank
you very much.
Mr. McConnell, did you have anyone you wanted to introduce?
Mr. McConnell. Yes. Right behind me is my wife of 32 years,
Laura.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you for being here today.
At this point, why don't we call on each of you to make
whatever statements you would like to make before we go to
questions.
Ms. Wodder, why don't you start, and then Mr. McConnell.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator From
Louisiana
I am pleased to support the nominations of both Mr. McConnell and
Ms. Wodder. Both positions are important to each of their respective
agencies and I hope we can get both of these individuals confirmed as
quickly as possible so that they can begin to fulfill the duties of
their new roles.
I met with Mr. McConnell earlier this week and I was very impressed
by him. While many Member of Congress believe that ``fossil fuels'' is
a bad word here in Washington, these are the fuels--coal, oil and
natural gas--that have powered this nation for decades and will
continue to power this nation well into the future. It is important to
have individuals in the Fossil Energy office who understand
hydrocarbons, how to make them cleaner and more efficient, because we
simply cannot just do away with these fuels as they supply 83 percent
of the energy consumed in this country. I believe that Mr. McConnell is
such a person who understands the importance of hydrocarbons and the
vital role they play to this nation's economy. I think he will be a
welcome addition as DOE's Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy and I
look forward to working with him in the future on projects that are
important to Louisiana and to the nation at large.
While I have heard some things that give me reservations about Ms.
Wodder's position on certain matters, I am ultimately not in opposition
to her nomination, but she has big shoes to fill. The former Assistant
Secretary, Tom Strickland, understood the important role domestic
energy plays in supplying this nation with jobs and energy security. He
also understood that there is an important balance when promoting
domestic energy and protecting the environment and that they are not
mutually exclusive goals. I hope that Ms. Wodder will follow in Mr.
Strickland's footsteps and will work to promote both objectives from
her role as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA WODDER, NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS
Ms. Wodder. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Senator
Murkowski, and members of the committee. I'm deeply honored to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee for
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
I'd like to begin with a personal introduction. I am from a
farming family, born and raised in Nebraska. My parents grew up
during the Depression and survived grasshopper plagues and the
Dust Bowl. Hardships had eased a bit by the time I was born,
but I learned the value of hard work early on. I never took any
good fortune for granted.
I spent the weekends and summers of my youth on my
grandparents' farms helping with chores and developing my love
of barnyards, farm animals, and corn fields. My parents were
both teachers, and my father taught at every level from a one-
room schoolhouse to the University of Nebraska. Public service
and education were important values in my family, and I've
spent most of my career working for public interest
organizations.
My lifelong commitment to conservation was awakened by an
experience in the spring of 1970. As a senior in high school,
my chemistry teacher tapped me to organize activities for the
first Earth Day. Inspired and eager to play a role in cleaning
up pollution, I went on to get undergraduate degrees in biology
and environmental studies and master of science degrees in
landscape architecture and water resources management.
In graduate school, I led a study of the Lower St. Croix
Wild and Scenic River. I spent a summer exploring the river,
talking to power boaters and paddlers, anglers and campers
about their experiences and how to minimize conflicts with
other users. A lasting memory from that time is discovering a
cache of sepia-toned, turn-of-the-century photographs of the
St. Croix. On both sides of the river, as far as the eye could
see, the land was completely cut over, and the river itself was
choked with logs.
It was that kind of devastation that inspired 19th century
conservationists. What hit me, though, was the resilience of
nature and how far the river corridor had come in restoring
itself, thanks to those who had the foresight to protect it.
When I became President and CEO of American Rivers, I saw
an opportunity to connect people to nature through rivers. We
explored, settled, and built America by river, and rivers are
relevant to things that every American cares about, clean
drinking water, health and safety, prosperity, and a high
quality of life. Most important, rivers are resilient and with
a little help, like the St. Croix, they can recover and be
valuable assets, the centerpiece of a vibrant community.
Among many river restoration projects that were undertaken
during my tenure, one that stands out was a creative approach
to improving conditions on the Penobscot River in Maine. A
collaborative effort between a power company, State and Federal
agencies, tribes, fishermen, and conservationists succeeded in
maintaining all of the project's hydropower generating capacity
while removing 2 dams and opening nearly 1,000 miles of
historic river habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon.
To be asked by President Obama and Secretary Salazar to
oversee the conservation of this nation's wildlife, natural and
cultural resources, and parks and refuges is the greatest honor
of my long career. If confirmed, I will approach my
responsibilities with deep humility and a commitment to work
closely with members of this committee, the fine staff of the
National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, and with
the many stakeholders who are affected by the services'
programs.
I will seek balanced approaches that take the needs of all
stakeholders into account. I believe that the best way to
achieve lasting conservation solutions is through a
collaborative process. I look forward to promoting the many
vehicles for partnership that have been developed to implement
our nation's conservation laws.
I will reach out proactively, especially to those whose
livelihoods are at stake, and listen carefully to their
concerns and ideas. I will aim for clear policy guidance based
on the best science. I will commit to fully transparent
decisionmaking.
Most fundamentally, I believe that conservation is a widely
held American value grounded in 2 quintessentially American
principles: being a good steward and being a good neighbor. The
Nebraska farmers I knew growing up worked hard to protect their
soil and water year after year. When a neighbor needed help,
everyone pitched in.
In closing, I would be greatly honored to serve as the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I believe
wholeheartedly in the missions of the National Park Service and
the Fish and Wildlife service. If confirmed, I will do my best
to provide the leadership, secure the resources, engage the
stakeholders, and together with the dedicated men and women of
these two services make measurable progress against the great
conservation challenges of our time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wodder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Wodder, Nominee for Assistant Secretary
for Fish And Wildlife and Parks
Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski and Members of the
Committee. I am deeply honored to be here with you today as President
Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
I am joined here today by my husband, James Van Erden, and one of
our two daughters, Jayme. Our younger daughter, Jennifer, cannot be
here because she is teaching English in a remote village in Panama, as
a Peace Corps volunteer. I am deeply grateful for their love and
support.
BACKGROUND
I would like to begin with a short, personal introduction that
helps to explain my background and why I am here today. I'm from a
Midwest farming family, born and raised in Nebraska. My parents grew up
during the Depression and my mother's family lost their farm. They
fought plagues of grasshoppers and the Dust Bowl, planting windbreaks
and hauling water to keep the trees alive.
Hardships had eased a bit by the time I was born in the early 50's,
but I learned the value of hard work early on and never took any good
fortune for granted. I spent the weekends and summers of my youth on my
grandparents' farms, helping with chores and developing my love of
barnyards, farm animals and endless fields of corn. Those windbreaks
planted during the Dust Bowl were some of my favorite places to hide in
the hot Nebraska summers.
My father enlisted in the Army at the start of World War II. When
he came back from the war, he finished his education on the GI Bill and
became a teacher. He taught at every level from a one-room schoolhouse
on the prairie to the University of Nebraska. My mother also taught
school. Public service and education were very important values in my
family, and I have spent most of my career working for public interest
conservation organizations.
My lifelong commitment to conservation was awakened by an
experience in the spring of 1970. As a senior in high school, my
chemistry teacher tapped me to organize activities for something new
called Earth Day. Inspired and eager to play a role in cleaning up
polluted rivers, I went on to get two undergraduate degrees from the
University of Kansas, in Biology and Environmental Studies; and two
Master of Science degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in
Landscape Architecture and Water Resources Management.
While studying at Wisconsin, I designed and led the first visitor
study of the Lower St. Croix Scenic River. I spent an entire summer
exploring the river, talking to power boaters and paddlers, anglers and
campers about their recreational experiences and how to minimize
conflicts with other users. A lasting memory from that time is
discovering a cache of sepia-toned, turn-of-the-century photographs of
the St. Croix. On both sides of the river, as far as the eye could see,
the land was completely cutover, a moonscape, and the river itself was
choked with logs. It was that kind of devastation that inspired 19th
century conservationists. What hit me, though, was the resilience of
nature and how far the river corridor had come in restoring itself,
thanks to those who had the foresight to protect it.
The next turning point came while working as a research assistant
to a University of Wisconsin professor who was writing a book on the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I was sent to Washington, D.C. to interview
Senator Gaylord Nelson for the book, and was offered a job as his
Legislative Aide on Environment and Energy. This was a great place to
start a conservation career in national public policy. My years as a
staffer to Senator Nelson taught me many things, among them, that
conservation is not a partisan issue, that conservationists should
reach out and engage all Americans, and that we must commit to this
effort for the long haul. He liked to point out that ``economy'' and
``ecology'' have the same Greek root, ecos, which means ``house'' and
that taking care of the planet is essential to both a strong economy
and healthy ecosystems.
After the 1980 elections, I went to work for The Wilderness
Society. I directed the Alaska program for three years and spent time
in many parts of the state, including a memorable three week canoe trip
on the Kobuk River which runs along the south flank of the Brooks
Range. My time in Alaska imprinted me with a love of wilderness and
wildlife, and gave me a much fuller appreciation for the majesty of
America's natural resources.
When I was recruited to be President and CEO of American Rivers, in
1995, I saw an opportunity to connect people to nature. Every community
in America can trace its' story to a river. We explored, settled and
built America by river. Rivers are relevant to things every American
cares about--clean drinking water, health and safety, prosperity, and a
high quality of life. Most important, rivers are resilient and with a
little help, like the St. Croix, they can recover and be valuable
assets, the centerpiece of a vibrant community. Sengalese poet and
naturalist, Baba Dioum, says, ``In the end, we will protect only what
we love.'' It seemed to me that rivers are a perfect medium for
Americans to discover their love of the great outdoors.
COLLABORATIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING
To be asked by President Obama and Secretary Salazar to oversee the
conservation of this Nation's wildlife, natural and cultural resources,
and parks and refuges is the greatest honor of my long career. If
confirmed by the Senate to the position of Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, I will approach my responsibilities with deep
humility and a commitment to work collaboratively with you, the fine
staff of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and with the many stakeholders who are affected by the Services'
programs.
The conservation challenges of the 21st century loom large,
alongside many other key issues affecting the wellbeing of Americans. I
believe solutions to our conservation challenges can also contribute to
a sound economy and a healthy, safe and thriving future for our Nation.
I have seen this in action in many places across America. In Harmony
Junction, Pennsylvania, the removal of an old dam to restore fish and
wildlife habitat also solved serious flooding problems and created a
recreational resource that supports the community's economy and quality
of life.
In presenting my qualifications to you, I would like to highlight
five key attributes that I bring to this assignment:
First, I am an experienced chief executive officer, having
successfully led American Rivers for 16 years of substantial growth and
accomplishment.
Second, I have 20 years of training and experience in developing
and implementing strategic plans. When obstacles are many and resources
few, having a good strategy is an absolute necessity.
Third, I am a good listener and am open and interested in different
points of view.
Fourth, I am a collaborative, constructive and patient problem-
solver.
I have led many effective public outreach and involvement efforts,
including serving for several years as Conservation Chair for the
National Council of the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial and partnering with
federal, state, local, and tribal governments, as well as grassroots
organizations and corporations to engage the public in this coast-to-
coast commemoration.
Among many river restoration projects that were undertaken during
my tenure, one that reflects these characteristics is a creative
approach to improving conditions on the Penobscot River in Maine. A
collaborative effort between a power company, tribal, state and federal
governments, angler organizations and conservation groups succeeded in
maintaining all of the hydropower generating capacity in the project
area, while removing two dams to open nearly 1,000 miles of historic
river habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon.
The experience I would bring to this position includes three
decades working with federal policies and programs related to natural
resource management, fish and wildlife protection, and land and water
conservation. As President of the nation's pre-eminent river
conservation organization, I have had the privilege of working with
hundreds of grassroots groups, local, state, federal and tribal
governments, and many different sectors of business and industry, to
develop solutions to complex problems with multiple stakeholders.
During my tenure, American Rivers played a significant role in adding
more than 100 rivers to National Wild and Scenic River System;
restoring thousands of miles of rivers; demonstrating natural or
nature-mimicking infrastructure solutions to water quality and supply
problems in dozens of cities across America; and working with partners
to find consensus solutions to conflicts between fish, water, and
energy needs in the Pacific Northwest.
Having spent 30 years in the public interest sector, I share with
each of you a deep commitment to public service and, if confirmed, I
will approach my responsibilities with humility and dedication. I will
aim for balanced solutions that take the needs of all stakeholders into
account. I believe that the best way to achieve lasting conservation
solutions is through a collaborative process and I look forward to
promoting the many vehicles for partnership that have been developed to
implement the Endangered Species Act and other key laws and
Congressional mandates. I will reach out proactively, especially to
those whose livelihoods are at stake, and listen carefully to their
concerns and ideas. I will ask my colleagues for robust analyses of all
alternatives and aim for clear policy guidance based on the best
science. And, I will commit to fully transparent decision-making.
Most fundamentally, I believe that conservation is a widely-held
American value, grounded in two quintessentially American principles--
being a good steward and being a good neighbor. The Nebraska farmers I
knew growing up worked hard to protect their soil and water year after
year, so that their sons and daughters could make a good living. And,
when a neighbor needed help, everyone pitched in.
These principles are part of President Obama's 21st century
conservation initiative, America's Great Outdoors. Built on a strong
bi-partisan foundation that goes back 100 years to the conservation
legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt, the fact that more than 10,000
Americans took time to participate in more than 50 listening sessions
across the nation last summer suggests a strong base of interest to
build on today. Many compelling goals were raised and discussed at
these public events and they provide a unique opportunity for
conservation progress that deeply interests me, should I be confirmed.
For example, the idea of empowering communities to connect with
America's great outdoors through their rivers and other waterways is a
goal that is near and dear to my heart. I have seen this work first
hand in places like Columbia, South Carolina, where the Congaree River
Blueway connects an urban community to Congaree National Park and
underserved youth to the outdoors.
I am also eager to learn about and contribute to the idea of
catalyzing large-scale land conservation partnership projects through
economic incentives and technical assistance. Large landscapes offer
opportunity to improve both the productivity and environmental
performance of industries that provide food, energy, and material goods
and the natural systems that provide clean air and water, productive
soils, flood protection and natural beauty that sustains our spirit.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would be greatly honored to serve as the Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I feel a strong connection
to the American landscape and a deep responsibility to future
generations of Americans. I believe wholeheartedly in the missions of
the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Should I
be confirmed by the Senate, I will do my best to provide the
leadership, secure the resources, engage the stakeholders, and together
with the dedicated men and women of these two Services, make measurable
progress against the great conservation challenges of our time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. McConnell, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. MCCONNELL, NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. McConnell. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member
Murkowski, distinguished members of the committee. It's a great
honor and privilege for me to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy.
I'd also like to thank Secretary Chu and President Obama
for their support and confidence in recommending and nominating
me. I'd like to thank the committee as well for considering
this nomination.
I'm currently the Chief Operating Officer at the Office of
Fossil Energy where I manage the daily operations of the
office's programs and leadership, including the strategic
planning, program direction, and evaluation work. I also
oversee Fossil's administrative and budgetary operations.
I was born and raised in a small Ohio River steel town in
Steubenville, Ohio. My mother was a school teacher, and my
father worked in a steel mill for 37 years. I've always had a
curiosity and appreciation for industry and spent 2 summers
working in a steel mill and a power plant while pursuing a
degree in chemical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. I
later earned an MBA at Cleveland State University.
My entire career has been focused on a broad range of
industries and energy development. My first job after college
was a plant engineer and later as a plant manager for Union
Carbide at facilities in Ohio, Pittsburgh, and on the East
Coast. Eventually, I was detailed to a joint venture between
Union Carbide and, at the time, Texaco which focused on
gasification and hydrocarbon conversion technologies.
Union Carbide later became Praxair, and I spent nearly 32
years with Praxair. I was fortunate to have held various
positions in the United States as well as Asia, including a -
year stint in Singapore as Managing Director for Asia Markets.
I ended my career at Praxair in Houston, Texas, as Global Vice
President. In that position, I provided leadership on research
and development initiatives in oxy-coal technologies, hydrogen,
refining and chemicals, enhanced oil recovery, as well as
carbon management science for carbon dioxide capture and
sequestration.
After retiring from Praxair in 2009, I served for 2 years
as the Vice President of Carbon Management at Battelle Energy
Technology in Columbus, Ohio. I there was responsible for
business and technology management, including the leadership of
the Midwest Region Carbon Sequestration Partnership.
During my career in the private sector, I've held a number
of advisory positions as well, including chairmanships of the
Gasification Technologies Council, the Clean Coal Technology
Foundation of Texas. I also served on the FutureGen Advisory
Board for the State of Texas, the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, T&P
Syngas Company, the Pittsburgh Coal Conference, and the Coal
Utilization Research Council.
I believe my technical and business background and
knowledge of energy markets, as well as management and
leadership skills, have positioned me with an experience and
expertise necessary to lead the Office of Fossil Energy.
Frankly, I consider it the opportunity of a lifetime. If I'm
confirmed, I look forward to applying my full energy and
commitment to addressing one of our nation's most critical
challenges: to ensure the competitive, sustainable, and
environmentally responsible use of our nation's vast fossil
energy resources.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank you
again for considering my nomination. I pledge that if I'm
confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Fossil, I'll work
closely with you and other Members of Congress to pursue that
common goal of securing America's energy future.
Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles D. McConnell, Nominee for Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy, Department of Energy
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished
members of the committee, it is a great honor and a privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary
for Fossil Energy.
I thank Secretary Chu and President Obama for their support and
confidence in recommending and nominating me. I also thank the
Committee for considering my nomination.
I am currently the Chief Operating Officer in the Office of Fossil
Energy, where I manage the daily operations of the Office's programs
and leadership, including strategic planning, program direction, and
evaluation. I also oversee Fossil Energy's administrative and budgetary
operations.
I was born and raised in the small steel town of Steubenville,
Ohio. My mother was a school teacher and my father worked in a steel
mill for 37 years. I have always had a curiosity and appreciation for
industry and spent two summers working in a steel mill and a power
plant while pursuing a degree in Chemical Engineering at Carnegie
Mellon University. I later earned an MBA at Cleveland State University.
My entire career has been focused on a broad range of industries
and energy development. My first job after college was as a plant
engineer and manager for Union Carbide at facilities in Ohio,
Pittsburgh and on the East Coast. Eventually, I was detailed to a joint
venture between Union Carbide and Texaco that focused on gasification
and hydrocarbon conversion.
Union Carbide later became Praxair, and I spent nearly 32 years
there. I was fortunate to have held various positions in the U.S. and
Asia, including a three-year stint in Singapore as Managing Director
for Asian Markets. I ended my career at Praxair in Houston, Texas, as
Global Vice President. In that position, I provided leadership on
research and development initiatives in oxy-coal technologies,
hydrogen, refining and chemicals, enhanced oil recovery, as well as,
carbon management science for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.
After retiring from Praxair in 2009, I served for two years as Vice
President of Carbon Management at Battelle Energy Technology in
Columbus, Ohio, where I was responsible for business and technology
management, including leadership of the Midwest Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership.
During my career in the private sector, I held a number of advisory
positions, including chairmanships of the Gasification Technologies
Council and the Clean Coal Technology Foundation of Texas. I also
served on the FutureGen Advisory Board; the Gulf Coast Carbon Center;
T&P Syngas Company; Pittsburgh Coal Conference; and the Coal
Utilization Research Council.
I believe my technical and business background and knowledge of
energy markets, as well as my management and leadership skills, have
provided me with the experience and expertise necessary to lead the
Office of Fossil Energy. And, if I am confirmed, I look forward to
applying my full energy and commitment to addressing one of our
Nation's most critical challenges: to ensure the competitive,
sustainable and environmentally responsible use of our Nation's vast
fossil energy resources.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I thank you again for
considering my nomination and I pledge that, if confirmed as Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy, I will work closely with you and others in
the Congress as we pursue the common goal of securing America's energy
future. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
The Chairman. Thank both of you for your excellent
statements. Let me start with a few questions. We'll just do 5-
minute rounds of questions here.
Mr. McConnell, let me ask you first about FutureGen. You
have had quite a history with that. How would you approach the
management of the revised FutureGen project that Fossil Energy
is undertaking? I guess the more precise question is: Will you
maintain its current strategic plan, or do you suggest maybe
some alternative project design? What are your thoughts on
that?
Mr. McConnell. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you're aware that the
FutureGen configuration has been revised prior to the current
facilities and the way it's designed. In terms of where it is
today, it represents one of the 3 key technologies in the
portfolio of Fossil Energy. In terms of the way the management
is structured and in terms of the way the business arrangements
are structured, currently, the people that are involved with
the FutureGen operations include the FutureGen Advisory Team as
well as the investors at the coal-fired power plant, both
moving the project forward, challenging financial situations as
they do move it forward. But, nonetheless, as we continue to
milestone the performance as the project moves forward, we
continue to be encouraged that it will be a success.
The Chairman. Let me ask about carbon sequestration. This
is an issue you've also had extensive involvement in. Recently,
large electric providers, in particular, AEP, have announced
their reluctance to pursue any further carbon capture and
sequestration projects despite large government financing for
these projects in the absence of some type of price on carbon
or some other carbon mitigation legislation.
I guess we've had some hearings here on the role of natural
gas in the future in this country. Those hearings have also
raised questions about the viability of CCS as a solution to
the problems that many utilities are faced with.
How do you see the impact of these changes on the regional
CCS partnership program and the Clean Coal Power Initiative
that you folks are pursuing there in the Fossil Energy Office?
Mr. McConnell. I think you've rightly pointed out that in
the absence of a carbon signal in the marketplace, in terms of
a carbon tax, cap and trade, or whatever mechanism might be
concerned, the economic viability of projects going forward
becomes more and more uncertain in the utility industries when
you are looking at simply capturing and storing carbon dioxide
in a sequestration. However, I think it's encouraging--in the
Fossil portfolio today, we have nine other projects that are
very actively advancing the CCS roadmap as it was originally
designed to develop carbon capture technologies, the geological
understanding and science associated with sequestration.
But those nine other projects also contain, I think, one of
the most game-changing, perhaps, aspects of the whole program.
What we're now beginning to talk very regularly and routinely
about is carbon capture utilization and storage. The
utilization is speaking in terms of taking that carbon dioxide
and in the process of enhanced oil recovery being able to put
it into geological formations to do 2 things: one, to be able
to recover vast quantities of unrecoverable oil without the use
of CO2; and in the process of recovering and
enhancing that oil and getting the returns associated with it,
it's also then permanently stored and sequestered--so really
the balance, long-term, between environmental responsibility in
getting sequestration and at the same time providing an
economic incentive and an economic driver to move these
projects forward so that they'll be continuing to provide value
to the marketplace, to manufacturers, and to the industry.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me continue with you, Mr. McConnell--a lot of
discussion lately about the SPR, strategic petroleum reserve.
If you are confirmed, you're going to have primary
responsibility over the SPR. I wonder if you could just
describe very briefly your view, your philosophy toward the SPR
and, specifically, whether or not it is appropriate to use the
SPR to manage high gasoline prices, as we saw just several
weeks ago, or whether it should only be called upon in terms of
actual supply disruption.
As you speak to that, I'd also ask you to address the--I
don't know how much substance there is to it, but there is
speculation--there are rumors that there may be a second round
of SPR that may come about. I've been a little bit concerned
that we have criteria that is somewhat vague. When we have a
release as we had several weeks back, it gives rise to a lot of
political discussion that I'm not convinced is appropriate when
we're talking about our strategic petroleum reserve.
So I'd like you to address just kind of where you're coming
from with the SPR, generally.
Mr. McConnell. Thank you, Senator. Let me address the first
part of your question first.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Mr. McConnell. In terms of Fossil Energy's
responsibilities, we have an ongoing and routine responsibility
for the sustainable, safe, and efficient operations of the
facilities, in terms of manning the facilities, conducting the
daily operations, and making sure that everything at the SPR is
functional and, if you will, in a ready-to-go operational State
24/7.
Also, as part of our responsibilities, we conducted the
sale and the auction of the oil as we were instructed and drove
it forward. In terms of preparing for it and in terms of the
actual operations of it, that's really more of an operational
discussion I just provided to you. But as the discussions were
being considered amongst a number of offices within the
Department of Energy, a lot of considerations went into it in
terms of when the release should occur and how large it would
be.
A big part of it was the fact that it was an International
Energy Agency action of which the United States was a part of.
Of course, as you know, we had 30 million barrels that went up
for sale. What was encouraging to us was that the 30 million
barrels were actually oversubscribed in the sale by as much as
100 percent, and we had almost 60 million barrels of offers
that came in.
I think it really largely speaks directly to the fact that
there was a supply interruption from the Libyan situation that
occurred. As a matter of fact, today, there's over 180 million
barrels of supply that had gone out of the system, and IEA's
determination was that it really was a liquidity event in terms
of oil in the marketplace and availability. So the action was
recommended by IEA to make up that supply gap.
I think from our perspective, we saw the market response to
that supply gap very strong at the time it was taken. In fact,
in terms of pricing targets, we really received almost a 96
percent price target in terms of the oil in the reserve. So it
was not a bargain basement sale, if you will.
Senator Murkowski. Does it make a difference if the--
because you keep referring to the fact that this was done in
concert with the IEA. Does it make a difference if it's a
unilateral action, as I understand this second contemplated SPR
would be?
Mr. McConnell. I can't speak to a second contemplated
release, but I----
Senator Murkowski. Speak to the unilateral action.
Mr. McConnell. But I can speak to the fact that it was very
important that it was an international response. That was a
conversation that went on for quite some time, in terms of the
United States' consistent approach to an action that was
internationally driven.
I'm not aware of any unilateral U.S. next step. As a matter
of fact, one of the issues that's currently on the table is
that the supplies continue to be tight, and there has been no
recommendation by the IEA to actually buy back the oil and
refill at this point in time.
Senator Murkowski. It's my understanding that the IEA
numbers that were out on Wednesday showed that our U.S. oil
inventories rose 2.3 million barrels last week, which is above
where they should be for this time of year, possibly a signal
that the demand is tapering off, which, in my view, would make
it even less compelling that there's a supply shortage that is
out there.
I've got some other questions that I will ask you, Mr.
McConnell, but--and Ms. Wodder, but my time----
The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My thanks to you both. I very much enjoyed our visits.
Let me start with you, Mr. McConnell. As we talked about in
the office, the development of oil and natural gas from shale
has the potential to be a real game changer in the U.S. energy
market, and there is, of course, tremendous, you know,
interest. As I discussed, you know, with you, one of the areas
I'm looking at, particularly in terms of policy for the future,
is trying to make sure that we don't have the gridlock that you
so often see when a promising energy source is discussed, where
people talk about production, then various concerns come up
with respect to the environment, and everything sort of gets
into a brawl that can hold everything up.
When Secretary Salazar was here a couple of months ago, I
proposed to him that morning to use the Interior Department's
oil and gas leasing program, the one on public lands, as an
effort to develop model practices, procedures, and regulations
that could be used on private lands to give us a chance to get
out in front of some of these controversies--it's already going
to be a challenge because we're seeing plenty of them already--
and make sure we can strike a balance so that we can get the
additional oil and gas. We can also be sensitive to
environmental and science concerns. Secretary Salazar said he
was interested in it.
My question to you is: Would you be willing to be a point
person between your office and Interior to speed this up and
ensure that both agencies are working together and that,
particularly, we look at using the public lands to try to make
sure that we strike this responsible balance? Would you be
willing to do that?
Mr. McConnell. Senator, as we did discuss, President Obama
looked to Secretary Chu and the Department of Energy to lead
the blue ribbon panel for the recent development work in
natural gas in terms of safety, sustainable hydrocarbon
recovery technologies. That blue ribbon panel and advisory
board is going to be reporting out very shortly here in the
next week or so. I think the final report is scheduled for the
17th of August. There'll be a series of recommendations that
will go a long way toward speaking to shale gas, fracking
technologies, issues around the natural gas area.
From my perspective, as I told you, I'd be delighted to be
in a position to ensure that that coordination and that point
activity to make something happen happened, because we're
absolutely committed to exactly what you just said, making it
happen and having a focal point to do that.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate it. As I indicated, what I like
about this concept--this is a chance to do it in the real
world. In other words, I've been putting myself to sleep nights
trying to go through the various reports and the like. But the
fact that the government, on public lands, could actually come
up with a real world experience so that we could achieve the
twin goals of extra production and best practices in the
environmental area would really make sense to me. So I'm glad
you're willing to take on that kind of effort.
Now, with respect to you, Ms. Wodder, I've received several
letters and comments expressing concern over positions you've
taken as President and CEO of American Rivers and that those
views, specifically in support of removing the Lower Snake
River dams, would make you unable to support the
administration's biological opinion for Columbia River salmon.
Now, my understanding is that you plan to address these
concerns head-on by recusing yourself from matters involving
the Columbia-Snake River dams.
Could you this morning confirm that that's the case and
give us a little bit of an explanation on how you would be
handling it?
Ms. Wodder. Yes, Senator Wyden. If confirmed, I will abide
by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the applicable
ethics rules and the administration's ethics pledge, and I will
regularly seek the assistance and guidance of the department's
ethics office. I have consulted with the department's ethics
office and understand that, as provided by the terms of my
ethics agreement and the administration's ethics pledge, I will
not participate for 2 years in any particular matters involving
specific parties in which American Rivers is a party or
represents a party.
In addition, if confirmed, I will voluntarily recuse myself
from participating in any Interior Department decisions
regarding the Columbia-Snake River system for the full time
that I am Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I would just
like to submit to Ms. Wodder for the record a couple of
questions with respect to the park side of your mission. As you
know from our visit, I care very much a about the Oregon Caves
Monument and expanding the boundary. We want you to work
constructively on that with the Forest Service. As we talked
about, I was able to get in the FAA legislation an amendment
that would allow the Park Service to reject an application to
have these fly over tours over our Special Gem, Crater Lake.
The Park Service under the amendment could reject an
application without first having to complete an air tour
management plan.
I'm very interested in your using that authority, if you're
confirmed. I'll pose that in writing. I was encouraged by the
comments you gave in the office.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski, if you had additional questions, go
right ahead.
Senator Murkowski. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Wodder, I want to follow up with a comment that you
just made in response to Senator Wyden about recusing yourself
from the matter as it related to the Lower Snake River. As I
heard, you said that you would recuse yourself from any matter
that American Rivers had been involved in in litigation during
your tenure at that time. Is that correct?
Ms. Wodder. As I understand the terms of the ethics
agreement--and I have consulted with the department's ethics
office--I will not participate for 2 years in any particular
matters involving specific parties in which American Rivers is
a party or represents a party. As I mentioned to Senator Wyden,
I would voluntarily recuse myself from participating in
Interior's decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River system
for the full time that I am Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife----
Senator Murkowski. Then let me ask this question, because
it's my understanding that American Rivers is an intervener
in--I want to make sure that I get this right--but an
intervener in every FERC application that is pending regarding
a hydro--current hydro projects that are under consideration.
Would that mean that you would recuse yourself from any
oversight or any involvement with any of these hydro projects
that are pending before the FERC?
Ms. Wodder. Senator Murkowski, I'm not an attorney, and so
I will do my best to answer your question as fully as I can. I
am not aware that American Rivers is an intervener in every
FERC proceeding. American----
Senator Murkowski. I'm told it's nearly every--and I don't
know what ``nearly'' is. So I apologize for that vagueness. But
it sounds like a lot.
Ms. Wodder. To my knowledge, I don't know the numbers. So
we'll go with your understanding for the time being. Again, my
understanding is that the pledge that I take as a non-attorney
is that I would be not participating or recused from
participating in any particular matters involving specific
parties in which American Rivers is a party or represents a
party for that 2-year period.
Senator Murkowski. I am told--and this is from a letter
that we received from nearly 40 members of the House that had
expressed some concern about your nomination. According to that
letter, American Rivers has either sued or been a party to 150
lawsuits against various parties, mostly the Federal
Government, between 1988 and the year 2011. I understand that
there's some discrepancy in that number. But it would appear to
me that if you stick to the commitment which you have just
repeated several times--and I appreciate that--but that it
would preclude you from involvement with a considerable number
of activities that would be before you ordinarily in your
capacity as--were this nomination to move forward.
I want to press a little bit more about the issue of
hydroelectric and your specific positions on this. As I've
indicated, this is particularly important to my State, where 24
percent of our electricity is generated from hydro.
Is it a blanket opposition to all hydro projects that you
have? Do you oppose all new dams regardless of size or
location? Do you oppose them even if the EIS will indicate that
there's no impact to the fisheries? Give me your perspective on
hydroelectric power generation.
Ms. Wodder. I'd be glad to, Senator Murkowski. I believe
hydropower generation can be a very important part of the
overall mix of meeting this country's energy needs. In fact, my
former organization, American Rivers, worked collaboratively
with the National Hydropower Association on legislation that
came before this committee to improve and increase the amount
of hydropower generating capacity through various means,
improving the turbines and the operating nature of the dams
that already provide hydropower and adding turbines to dams
that don't currently have that generating capacity, to the
point that the amount of hydropower generating capacity in this
country could be doubled.
So I believe that hydropower can be a very important and
green source of energy when it's properly sited, operated, and
mitigated. I believe that's a direction which the country can
and should head.
Senator Murkowski. So you would agree with Secretary Chu
that we have the potential to generate between 20,000 and
60,000 megawatts of new electricity when we're talking about
hydropower and our ability to electrify existing dams. You
don't have concern with that. I'm going to press more in the
next round here to understand exactly where your opposition to
hydropower is, because it's been made clear previously that
you've got some concerns with this, and I'm trying to ferret
that out.
The Chairman. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you both for joining us today. I'm sorry
I couldn't be here for the first part of the hearing. I was
detained in another committee where we had a roll call vote--
ran up here as soon as that was over. But thank you for being
here, and I apologize in advance if any of my questions cover
ground that is duplicative of anything that might have been
covered already.
I have a few questions for you, Ms. Wodder. It concerns me
a little bit that you claim to be a strong supporter of a new
economic model based on no economic growth and a huge fan of an
organization that believes that economic growth in the United
States is doing more harm than it is good. During the last 3
years, we've seen what an economy based on little or no
economic growth looks like, and it's not pretty.
Are you still a strong supporter of a new economic model
that's based on no economic growth?
Ms. Wodder. Senator Lee, I believe that we owe a duty to
future generations to provide a sustainable approach to
economic growth in this country. As I said in my opening
statement, I think that being good stewards is part of what
defines Americans and really makes all of us as Americans
conservationists. So I believe that there are smart ways to
proceed with providing the economic growth that this country
needs in concert with good environmental protection.
Senator Lee. Sure, sure. But there is a difference, is
there not, between no economic growth and sustainable policies
and practices?
Ms. Wodder. I believe that sustainable approaches to
economic growth--I'm not saying anything in a negative way
about economic growth. I'm just suggesting that we can approach
it in a good, sustainable manner that will provide for the
needs of current generations and not diminish the needs of
future generations.
Senator Lee. But you have described yourself as a huge fan
of an organization that calls for no economic growth. Is that
right? Is that still the case?
Ms. Wodder. Senator, I believe you're referring to an
interview that I gave a number of years ago in a--when I
complimented another organization. I have some familiarity with
that organization, but I can really speak to my own record and
the organization that I have worked for. I'm not really
prepared to support that particular organization or--one way or
the other.
Senator Lee. OK. So you've changed since the interview you
gave years ago?
Ms. Wodder. I believe my views have been consistent
throughout my career that I--as I stated, I believe that we
need to proceed with our economy in a way that supports the
current needs of the population and in a way that doesn't harm
the resources for future generations.
Senator Lee. OK. In an interview--it may have been the same
interview with E Magazine a few years ago--you were asked
whether you were a vegetarian. You replied, ``I'm not a total
vegetarian, but I make a point of eating low on the food chain
as often as possible.'' In a 2007 interview, you stated, ``I
eat almost no beef or pork because of the amount of resources
consumed in producing food via cattle or pigs because I object
to factory farms.''
But, Ms. Wodder, what concerns me a little bit is that what
you call factory farms, we in Utah call family farms. In Utah,
these farms contribute more than $2 billion a year to our
economy. We're a small State. We're a relatively poor State,
and we need those family farms. Many of those farms and ranches
are affected by BLM grazing policy. In fact, they're at the
complete mercy of BLM grazing policy, and all of them could be
affected by an endangered or threatened species habitat being
declared anywhere close by.
So while your purview wouldn't cover the BLM, generally,
you would have a powerful voice impacting decisions of BLM if
Endangered Species Act consultation is required. The ESA can
place severe restrictions on Americans' control--their ability
to control their own private property.
In Iron County, for example, a corner of Utah's
southwestern part of the State, Utah farmers and ranchers are
restricted to what they can do on their land, because it's
considered critical habitat to the questionably listed Utah
prairie dog. So when a controversy like the Utah prairie dog
comes before you, how are we to believe that these factory
farms, as you describe them, or family farms, as we call them
in Utah, will get a fair shake in the analysis under the
Endangered Species Act?
Ms. Wodder. Senator, I appreciate your question. I, myself,
am from a farming background in Nebraska. My husband is from
Utah. I appreciate the resources that you're talking about and
the importance of our farming community across this country. I
would commit to you that I understand the job of the Assistant
Secretary, should I be confirmed, is to impartially and fairly
administer the laws and directives of Congress. I commit to you
that I would approach that in an open-minded way and come up
with a fair and transparent approach to decisionmaking.
Senator Lee. You wouldn't be biased based on your previous
stated objections to factory farms or based on your previous
stated objection to economic growth?
Ms. Wodder. As I mentioned, Senator, I'm from a farming
background myself, and I believe in the value of the farming
community in this country. I think farmers are some of the best
conservationists I know, and that's where my conservation
background stems from.
Senator Lee. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso, I believe, is next.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McConnell, thanks so much for coming to the office and
spending some time visiting yesterday. I enjoyed our
discussion.
I want to follow up a little bit on the strategic petroleum
reserve that was tapped. We mentioned that there were 30
million barrels released recently that was--there were other--2
instances where, to me, were clear emergencies--Operation
Desert Storm and Hurricane Katrina. The recent release was
equal to the total amount of the other 2 combined. It was 30
million last time. It was combined--of 31 million barrels.
The law says that we should release for a severe energy
supply interruption, severe energy supply interruption. The
president blamed the situation on Libya. So if I could ask for
a little bit of a conversation--because I know you were
involved, not in the final decision, but in somewhat of the
implementation--that if the department really did recommend to
the president that the United States faced a, quote, ``severe
energy supply interruption'' and how that was thought through.
Mr. McConnell. As we discussed, Senator, it was very
important as we analyzed the entire aspect of what was going on
that the international response to this was coordinated. It was
something that international countries supported and called
upon for us to support. Really, the conversations we were
having internally, especially in Fossil Energy, were focused
primarily around making certain that we had the readiness of
the operation, the inventories in a good position, being able
to conduct the supply logistics, et cetera. But it was and
always was part of the conversation that it be an
internationally deemed action, not something that was
unilateral from the United States.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciated the frankness of the
discussion yesterday and want to thank you for your willingness
to serve and congratulate you on this nomination.
Mr. McConnell. Thank you, sir.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Wodder, we had a chance to visit last
week when you testified at the Environment and Public Works
Committee. I just wanted to follow up a couple of concerns I
have, because I remain concerned about your statements
opposing--what I view as opposing American energy exploration.
You've opposed oil and gas exploration. You've opposed coal
mining. You've opposed hydropower.
Based on your record, to me, there is no evidence that you
could provide a reasonable perspective in this very important
position, just based on your record up until now. On oil and
natural gas exploration, you said, quote, ``Fracking has a
nasty track record of creating a toxic chemical soup that
pollutes ground water and streams, threatening public health
and wildlife.'' You've also said, quote, ``Unless we stop the
threat of rampant shale fracking, the drinking water for 17
million people across the Northeast will be threatened by toxic
pollution.''
Hydraulic fracturing has been around for about 60 years.
About a million wells have been fracked. To me, it's going to
play a critical and crucial role in American oil and gas
exploration. Even Lisa Jackson said that there was no proven
cases of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing.
So on coal mining, you said, quote, ``Mountaintop removal
mining causes irreparable damage to the environment and
communities.'' You know, coal mining, oil and gas production--
these are thousands of good-paying jobs in Wyoming. So I just
wanted to give you a chance to kind of explain your positions
and to--you know, those are positions that you took just
because you were working for American Rivers and, you know, how
you sit on these things like hydraulic fracturing, coal mining,
because I think it's important for all of us to know exactly
where you are and when you were a hired spokesman for an
organization versus this new role that you've been nominated
for.
Ms. Wodder. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. As you point out,
the job that I had as President and CEO of American Rivers was
to be an advocate for the mission of that organization on
behalf of the board and the members of the organization, the
mission being healthy rivers and clean waters to support the
communities, both human and natural, that depend on them.
This position, should I be confirmed, is a very different
one. The job is to implement the policies and positions of the
administration as part of a team and also to impartially
administer the laws and directives of Congress. I most
certainly appreciate the difference and would be dedicated to
fulfilling that responsibility.
In responding to the particulars of your question, I've
already mentioned that I believe that hydropower can be a very
important part of the energy mix of this country, and I feel
the same way with respect to natural gas. I think, as the
president has said, the important thing is to proceed carefully
so that at the time that we're developing energy resources we
don't, in an unintended way, harm other critical resources like
clean water.
I think this country has been able to find a balance
between energy production and environmental protection. In
fact, I think the best examples are when both of those goals
are enhanced and achieved at the same time. I mentioned the
project, for example, of the Penobscot that I worked on when I
was president of American Rivers, in which power generating
capacity of a river was maintained at the same time that 1,000
miles of habitat was opened up. So I believe there are creative
approaches that can achieve both of the goals of enhanced
energy and environmental protection.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
The Chairman. All right. We're going to try to go back and
forth here and somewhat in the order that people arrived and
allow all the members that haven't asked questions to do so.
Senator Manchin, you'd be next.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry that we
got here late, and I'd like to--hopefully, I don't be redundant
on some of the questions that have been asked.
But, Mr. McConnell, I appreciate very much you coming and
visiting with me, and we had a nice conversation. I think we
talked about carbon capture sequestration, the things that
should be done in order to use the resources that we have to be
less dependent on foreign oil, which I think really threatens
the security of our nation more than anything that we have
facing us.
On that, and that alone--you know, some of the decisions
have been made on carbon capture sequestration in my state--
Mountaineer Plant. You might want to, if you want to, comment
on that and how you think that there might be a way for us to
move forward.
Mr. McConnell. Senator Manchin, I, too, enjoyed the
discussion. I think it's--first of all, first and foremost,
it's important to recognize the commitment that not only the
Department of Energy made for the past number of years at the
AEP site in West Virginia, but also the learnings and the
development that have gone on over those past 10 years
advancing the science in both carbon capture as well as the
geological understanding, the geological advancements.
That project will actually continue, and we will have a
first phase series of results that will be a big part of the
overall program in CCPI and a lot of the work that has gone on
for a number of years and really continue to advance the
mission. As we discussed in previous conversations here today
as well, we're also seeing at current state, in the absence of
a carbon signal in the marketplace, in the absence of anything
that would be on the short-term clear horizon, for the utility
industry to simply take CO2 and sequester it
certainly provides environmental benefit. But it's clearly a
challenge in terms of marketplace conditions to spend money and
invest money.
I think one of the things that we take pride in in Fossil
is the fact that our research programs are heavily industry
supported as well--cost shares typically as much as 50 percent.
But, in fact, in many of the projects in our portfolio, we have
as much as 10-to-1 industry participation versus government
money.
But, more specifically, how do we advance projects such as
the AEP project? I made mention earlier today of the nine other
projects we have in our portfolio where carbon dioxide can go
to utilization opportunities for enhanced oil recovery,
enhanced gas recovery, but not just for economic benefit, but
for the benefit of the environment as well.
So in Fossil, what you'll get from us is a commitment to
advance the environmental footprint through the CCS program for
sure, but to also weigh in hard with this economic advantage
that has to be produced as well to utilize that CO2
long term. So we're very encouraged with that, because these
projects aren't just simply for research and development, but
also will be a big part of our industry going forward.
There's a lot of oil in your State as well, in western
Pennsylvania and Ohio, in places where enhanced oil recovery
today does not exist. Big markets--there are some studies that
would indicate there's as much as 85 billion barrels of
unrecovered oil in this country that with carbon dioxide could
be brought up. That's a significant amount of economic
advantage.
Senator Manchin. Thank you.
Ms. Wodder, do you believe that there's a balance between
the economy and the environment to be found and use all the
resources we have in this Nation?
Ms. Wodder. Senator Manchin, I appreciate the question. I
certainly agree with you that we need to find a balance. I
often--as I said a moment ago, I often find that we can, in
fact, enhance both environmental protection and our economic
interest in finding creative solutions by bringing various
parties together and having good collaborative discussions.
Senator Manchin. I appreciate--in the job that you had
before--your commitment and convictions, and I respect that.
But I think it would be very hard for you to have an unbiased
position on trying to use the resources that we have in this
nation and be less secure. I have deep concerns about that,
ma'am. If you have any way to explain how I could get a comfort
with your being confirmed to the position you're seeking, I
would like to hear it from you.
Ms. Wodder. Certainly, Senator Manchin. I would point to
the record that the organization I led previously, American
Rivers, has compiled over the years and the many, many examples
where American Rivers sat down at a table with other
stakeholders and found consensus-based, collaborative solutions
that enabled agricultural interests to irrigate, that enabled
hydropower dams to continue to generate power, and at the same
time were able to protect the environmental resources or
restore environmental resources.
It's been a practice that I have long believed in, that the
best solutions are the ones that are arrived at in that kind of
a collaborative approach. Those are the solutions that last. I
would dedicate myself to that work should I be confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary, a collaborative approach.
Senator Manchin. Thank you so much. My time has expired.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Ms. Wodder, thank you for coming by my office and meeting
with me. We had, I think, a frank and open discussion, and I
find you a very nice person and deeply, deeply committed,
personally, to the kinds of things that you've devoted your
career to. Therein lies the problem.
I have real difficulty with this, and I don't want to make
this a secret. It troubles me deeply to have someone who's
represented a special interest group to come and try to do what
you're going to be asked to do in leading this agency. You
know, every one of us is a product of our own philosophy. I've
read what you've written before. Some of it's been quoted here
today. I appreciate you coming in and trying to move to the
center. But I'll tell you I have real difficulty with that.
That's part of the problem today with what's happened with
the advice and consent process. We're asked for consent but
never asked for advice on this. I think if we were asked for
advice on this, we'd say, ``Look, there's 330 million people in
this country, and we ought to have someone much more neutral in
a position such as you're being ask to do.''
I wouldn't want to ask you to abandon what you seem to have
as deep, deep convictions and principles that you've expressed
in your previous writings and previous interviews. I don't
think anybody would ask any one of us to do that. When we go to
the voters and ask them to--it would be like me going to the
voters and saying, ``Oh, send me to the U.S. Senate. I'm going
to be moderate.'' I'm not moderate. I'm conservative. I've
demonstrated that over my life. That's the deep feeling that I
have. I know you have deep feelings about some of these
environmental things.
I think taking out dams is a good example. I've read your
writings about the commitment that you have, as far as removing
dams on the Snake River. I very much disagree with you on that.
But, nonetheless, I admire the commitment that you've had over
your lifetime to the principles that you feel are important to
you.
I think it would be very difficult for you to lead this
organization. You're going to be asked to promote people, to
give people raises, to deal with people in the agency, and
there's no possible way you can set aside the deep convictions
that you have to the principles that you have expressed. I
wouldn't ask you to do that, and I don't think anybody should
ask you to do that.
Last, I would say that you've indicated you're going to
recuse yourself from the items that you've been involved with
since your agency is suing the organization to get certain
things. You've said that you're going to recuse yourself from
that. I don't know how that's possible. I understand that you
can say that. But when you're standing at the water cooler or
you're talking about raises for people or promotions for
people, I don't see how that could help but be influenced by
your involvement in those kinds of things.
So I wouldn't be telling you the truth if I didn't tell you
I have deep, deep reservations about you being able to do the
job that you're being asked to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McConnell, as you can imagine, your job is really
important to Ohio. This is, I think, a key job for a lot of
reasons, but one is because EPA has gone so far in terms of the
regulatory side that it's threatening coal-fired plants all
over the country. In Ohio, where we get 86 percent of our
electricity from coal, it's particularly disturbing.
We've had 2 utilities recently announce that they're going
to close down plants because of what's happening--a huge job
loss, a huge tax base loss in those communities. Higher
electricity costs are projected for everybody at a time when
our economy is struggling. So we want to be sure that somebody
at DOE who is on the fossil fuel side--and you've got a good
background--is providing a counterbalance, frankly.
So if you could, I want to ask you to give me answers to a
couple of these questions. I saw in your testimony--you said
you're committed to addressing one of our nation's most
critical challenges, ensuring the competitive, sustainable, and
environmentally responsible use of our fossil fuel resources.
Again, 50 percent of electricity comes from burning coal
nationally and in Ohio about 86 percent.
Let me just give you a list of some of these rules that are
coming out that have a direct effect on what you talk about as
our fossil fuel energy sources, given that dependence on coal:
The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; of course, the Utility MACT
Rule; the Section 316(b) Rule; the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards coming out--reconsideration that's voluntary of the
2008 standards. When you look at the impact of all this, EPA
has analyzed it, and they come out with an estimate of about
16.7 gigawatts of coal-fired power would retire by 2015.
Everybody on this committee would like to see continued
progress on the environmental front and want to be sure we're
breathing cleaner air. But we also want to be sure there's a
balance. I think that's, you know, what we're not seeing right
now, and I think we need somebody in your job who's going to
fight for that.
By the way, 16.7 gigawatts is on the low end of all the
other estimates that are out there. I've got a list of 6 or 7
other estimates: ICF's, FBR's, Energy Information
Administration, North American Reality Corporation. If you add
all those up, the average is about 50 to 60 gigawatts of power.
That's about--that's over 20 percent, I think, of our coal-
fired capacity.
So this is going on as we talk, and I guess I'd like to
hear your comments on it. Secretary Chu has even said he
expects a massive retirement within the next 5 to 8 years.
Assistant Secretary Wood just gave an estimate recently. He
said that he thinks it's going to result in the retirement of
35 to 70 gigawatts. This is frightening.
Can you give us your best estimate of it and tell us your
perspective on it?
Mr. McConnell. Senator Portman, I was born and raised in
Steubenville over in the east part of the State, and I've got a
home in Columbus today. Coal's been in my blood, I guess, from
the day I was born. In terms of what it means and in terms of
what it's meant over these years, it's undeniable. I think
that's really the big challenge that we have at Fossil, in
terms of continuing to have fossil play an important part of
the mix going forward.
The research and the work that we're doing--it has actually
done a phenomenal amount of good in the marketplace in terms of
NOX, SOX, mercury removal over the past
40 years--all of it directly attributable to work that's gone
on at the Department of Energy and the National Energy
Technology Laboratory. We're continuing to keep fossil not just
relevant, but continue to work toward making it that
economically compelling choice, which doesn't make you tradeoff
between environmental responsibility and economic viability,
but, in fact, driving the technology forward to do both.
Specific to your question, there are a lot of studies that
are out there with a lot of different assumptions that people
make in terms of when rules will come in and when they won't
come in and they're proposed but they're not sure when they're
actually going to come in. I can assure you there's an active
conversation that's ongoing daily at the Department of Energy
in terms of looking at the impact of these regulations and the
analysis that's been done, looking at it in terms of
specifically regional impacts in terms of reliability, in terms
of the closures that have been discussed and the ability to
meet that demand so the lights don't go out and the economies
of providing power don't change for the American consumer
materially.
So you have my commitment from a fossil energy perspective
that that conversation continues to be lively and it will be.
Senator Portman. In the interagency discussions about this,
do you commit that you will be an advocate for the balance?
Given your Buckeye background and your Steubenville background,
I think you understand that importance to our economy and to
our jobs. As you say, there are ways to find balance. We've
been doing it. I mean, we've made tremendous progress.
In my own hometown, Duke just announced a week or so ago
they're going to shut down the Beckjord Plant. You probably
know the Beckjord Plant. So, you know, we're--obviously, it
hits the tax base hard. We lose--I don't know--120 jobs or so--
the impact on, again, the electricity rates, which makes Ohio
less competitive at a time when we're already struggling.
Can you commit today that you will be an advocate
internally for that balance and to be sure that we can continue
to use the fossil fuels that we have?
Mr. McConnell. I would commit to that personally. I believe
if you look at the DOE's strategic roadmap, what I believe and
what the department believes is that fossil will continue to be
an important part of the mix going forward, absolutely.
Senator Portman. I look forward to working with you, and,
you know, I think this is an urgent need. When you look at the
options we have to get this economy moving again, energy has to
be at the top of the list. It has to include, in my view, doing
some more energy here, including in places like your home area,
where the possibility now through fracking and horizontal
drilling exists to be able to extract natural gas, and in parts
of Utica--as you know, oil and wet gas that are going to be
incredibly important for jobs and needs to be done in an
appropriate way--can be, has been. But we need you in there as
an advocate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We'll try to do a second round now to the extent folks have
additional questions. I do not have, but I would yield to
Senator Wyden for a question he wanted to have, and then to
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Wodder, like Senator Murkowski and Senator Risch and
westerners, I am a very strong supporter of hydropower. It's
enormously important in our region, and I want to see if I can
clarify what you talked about--I believe it was with Senator
Murkowski--and see if I can sort all this out.
I heard you to say that you had worked with policymakers on
hydro issues. Now, we had a bill that came out of committee May
18th of this year. Senator Murkowski and Senator Risch and
Senator Crapo on the Republican side, Senator Begich, Chairman
Bingaman, myself on the Democratic side, had strong bipartisan
support. I think that's the bill that you indicated you all had
worked with us on. It's called the Hydropower Improvement Act
of 2011--strong bipartisan support, the senators I mentioned
from the committee.
Isn't that the bill--because I asked staff--I remember some
discussions with a host of both power producers and
environmental folks and--that's what we always do in trying to
get a bill together. Chairman Bingaman's counsel on these
things is very valuable. I think you all were part of that and
were supportive of that bill. Is that what you were talking
about?
Ms. Wodder. Yes, Senator Wyden, that is. American Rivers
worked collaboratively with the National Hydropower Association
and with committee members and their staffs to make that
legislation a success. We were very proud to be part of that
effort.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me follow on there because I want to get to some of the
specifics. I asked you a pretty general question when it came
to your support or opposition of hydro in general. In Alaska,
we've got a lot of lake tap hydropower generation. Would you
support providing tax credits and Federal incentives for lake
tap hydro projects?
Ms. Wodder. Lake tap?
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Ms. Wodder. Senator Murkowski, I would begin by saying that
as President and CEO of American Rivers, I covered a wide
spectrum of issues. I'm not personally an expert in hydropower,
although I have learned quite a bit about it over the many
years that I was at American Rivers. So I can't comment on the
particular question that you asked.
But I would say that this nation needs the power that
hydropower can provide. It should be determined on a case-by-
case basis, oftentimes with proper siting, operations, and
mitigation. We can have a complement of hydro--increased
generating capacity along with good environmental protection,
and that's what American Rivers has worked for during the time
that I served as the president.
Senator Murkowski. One of the great benefits from lake tap
hydro and why it works so well in a State like mine--we've got
very high alpine lakes. We tap the water flow from the bottom
of the lake. It lets the water flow out to generate the power.
There's no impact to our fisheries or our stream flows. We
think it's a pretty magnificent way to provide for power
generation.
We have not had the support of American Rivers when it
comes to the tax credits, the Federal incentives that we were
seeking to provide for a designation that hydropower be
considered as a renewable energy source. I think it's something
that, again, we look at. All hydropower does not look like the
Hoover Dam. We've demonstrated that in Alaska.
Pump storage--again, this is an area where we believe that
you can have considerable benefits to the environment as well
as the consumer. But it is an area where American Rivers has
opposed us on this power source generation. So I'm trying to
determine, again, where you are coming from when it comes to
hydroelectric generation.
You've been very general in your response, saying that we
need greater commitment to hydro, and I would certainly endorse
that. But I think it is going to be critically important, if
you are to be confirmed to this position, that there be a
recognition that all hydro is not--I guess it's not the same.
Have you formed a conclusion on Alaska's project that I
mentioned, the Susitna Dam project, which would be new dam
construction? It would be a large dam. Have you formed an
opinion as to that specific project?
Ms. Wodder. Senator Murkowski, I do not have an opinion on
the particular project that you raise. I would like to say that
should I be confirmed in this position of Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the decisions on hydroelectric
power projects would not be under my jurisdiction. That would
be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
Senator Murkowski. That is correct. But the Fish and
Wildlife Services absolutely do weigh in, and this is something
that we see in our State on a considerable number of issues.
It's not just the hydro projects. American Rivers has listed
the Bristol Bay watershed as the No. 2 most endangered river
system. This is going to have--potentially could have an impact
on that project in Alaska.
Is it something that Fish and Wildlife is integral to? No.
Is it something that they weigh in on? Absolutely, yes. So
there are areas where, yes, you are not the--I guess, the
primary agency that weighs in. But there is a great deal of
influence that is generated through the various agencies, and
you would be playing a role there.
Let me ask you about the Bristol Bay watershed. This is
something, again, that while you were CEO at American Rivers,
the watershed was named the No. 2 most endangered river system.
Do you have any views that you could share with me on the
Pebble Project? Or do you agree with American Rivers' position
on this?
Ms. Wodder. As you point out, my former role at American
Rivers--Bristol Bay was raised because of the Pebble mining
project. If I were to be confirmed in this new role, of course,
mining is under--not under the jurisdiction of the Fish and
Wildlife and Parks section of the Department of Interior----
Senator Murkowski. But, again, you do weigh in.
Ms. Wodder. The Fish and Wildlife Service, in particular,
plays a consulting role, particularly if there are endangered
species involved. I would commit to you that I understand the
difference between the role I played previously as an advocate
for healthy rivers and, if confirmed, the role I would play as
an administrator of the laws and directives of this Congress,
the policies and positions of the administration.
I believe myself to be an open-minded person, a good
listener. I'm interested in the points of view of all of the
stakeholders and would seek creative, collaborative, consensus
solutions that would meet the needs of everyone involved, and I
make that commitment to you.
Senator Murkowski. It, I think, is important to recognize
that in a State like Alaska or many of the western States,
where so much of our lands are owned by the Federal Government,
that the agencies that have any aspect of influence or are part
of the decisionmaking process--we recognize that they can slow
down, they can impede, they can kill opportunities, projects.
So whether or not your agency, were you to be confirmed, would
have, again, that primary oversight is not necessarily
controlling, because what we're seeing, whether it is
development on the National Petroleum Reserve or whether it is
issues as they relate to navigability in our rivers--there are
avenues where the Federal agencies weigh in, and the next thing
you know, we have a project that is stalled for a period of
years, opportunities that are foregone, and it causes a level
of frustration within our State, in terms of our ability to
access our resources, provide for jobs, and really to benefit
the American economy.
Mr. Chairman, one last question, and I think it will be
very quick.
This relates to the quote that Senator Barrasso made
relating to hydraulic fracturing. This is your quote, that
hydraulic fracturing has a nasty track record of creating a
toxic chemical soup that pollutes ground water. Senator
Barrasso also mentioned that Administrator Jackson has told
Congress that there have been, quote, ``no proven cases where
the fracking process itself has affected water.''
Do you stand by your statement? If this is an opportunity
to retract your statement, I'd like to give you that
opportunity to do so.
Ms. Wodder. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. As I have said, I
believe natural gas is an important part of the overall energy
mix for this country. I think it needs to be approached in a
careful way so that we don't at the same time develop--as we
are developing that resource, contaminate other important
resources like clean water.
Senator Murkowski. I agree with that. But do you agree, or
do you stand by your statement that there is a nasty track
record of creating a toxic chemical soup that pollutes ground
water?
Ms. Wodder. I believe there have been any number of press
reports and also academic studies that have found numerous
instances of both accidental and intentional spills of fracking
fluids into surface and ground water----
Senator Murkowski. Even though the administrator has said
that there are no proven cases where the fracking process
itself has affected water?
Ms. Wodder. I think there is a distinction between the
fracking process itself and activities surrounding hydraulic
fracturing that have led to some contamination. Most companies
operate responsibly and strive to avoid those sorts of
accidental and occasionally intentional spills. But there
certainly have been many records of fines that have been levied
against a few companies that have had those sorts of problems.
Senator Murkowski. I take it you don't retract your
statement.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity that you've
given so many of us to ask multiple rounds. These are important
questions, and I appreciate the witnesses today, and we will
move forward.
The Chairman. Let me thank both of you for being here and I
appreciate your testimony. The committee will undoubtedly move
ahead on the nominations sometime in the reasonably near
future.
Thank you. That will conclude our hearing.
Let me mention one other thing. We will advise members that
if they have additional questions to submit for the record,
they should have those to us by 5 tomorrow. We would,
obviously, appreciate it if the witnesses could respond to
those.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Rebecca Wodder to Questions From Senator Wyden
OREGON CAVES
Question 1. I have a bill to expand the Oregon Caves National
Monument boundary by 4,084 acres to include the entire Cave Creek
Watershed, by transferring that land from the United States Forest
Service to the National Park Service. The Park Service has long
supported expanding the Monument boundary--a position held since the
1930's and articulated in the Monument's 1998 General Management Plan.
While legislation will be needed to complete that transfer, I have been
disappointed that the Agency has supported deferring action on my
legislation to see if more cooperative management approaches could be
worked out with the Forest Service. My understanding is that such
dialogue has been going on for several years but has failed to produce
a result. I understand both Agencies will need to come to the table and
that is not all within your control, but can I get your commitment that
if confirmed you will look anew at my Oregon Caves legislation, and
seek to work out a solution with the Forest Service to better protect
this resource until my legislation passes and the transfer is
completed?
Answer. I appreciate that you are very interested in the protection
of the resources at Oregon Caves National Monument. If I am confirmed
as Assistant Secretary, I commit that I will make this one of my top
priorities for Oregon, and will seek to work toward an appropriate
solution with the Forest Service.
CRATER LAKE OVERFLIGHTS
Question 2. I have been very alarmed by efforts of a helicopter
company to seek to do air tours over Oregon's only National Park--
Crater Lake. This park is absolutely a gem in our state and my
constituents especially treasure the serenity and silence of the place.
I managed to get an amendment in the Senate's Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) bill that would allow the Park Service to reject
this application without first having to complete an air tour
management plan. I hope that this is an authority the National Park
Service would use if the final FAA bill is enacted with this provision.
Can I get your assurance that if confirmed you would direct the
National Park Service to utilize this new authority in determining
whether an application to lead air tours over Crater Lake should be
denied?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the National Park Service
utilizes all available authorities to protect the resources and visitor
experience at Crater Lake National Park.
EAGLES AND WIND TURBINES
Question 3. Oregon and other states have wind energy projects in
the permitting process that are now being stopped by the Fish &
Wildlife Service because of possible impact on Golden Eagles and other
species. I understand that there are laws on the books that FWS is
obligated to enforce governing eagles, but the guidance that FWS has
released for developers is coming after some companies have spent years
in development and is simply not practical--like requiring them to stop
everything and collect 3 years worth of additional bird population
data. Renewable energy development is critical to protecting the
environment from climate change and other impacts from fossil fuel, if
confirmed, what will your position be on development of regulations and
permitting for wind turbines?
Answer. Investment in renewable energy is a priority for President
Obama and Secretary Salazar. Although I am not yet familiar with the
details of the Department of the Interior's work with the wind industry
on its efforts to meet the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, I understand that
both Secretary Salazar and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe
are committed to facilitating wind development projects in ways that
meet the Department's wildlife conservation responsibilities. I also
understand that the reason the Fish and Wildlife Service is developing
voluntary guidelines is to provide the industry and the agency with
tools and guidance to get projects up and running. I understand that
revised draft wind energy guidelines, which contain certain changes to
address concerns of the wind industry, were recently published to allow
for additional public review. I support a process that fully considers
the input of the public, including the wind industry. If confirmed, I
look forward to gaining a full understanding of this issue, and I will
do all I can to support the Department's strong commitment to renewable
energy in concert with its obligation to protect wildlife populations.
APPLEGATE DAM AND LOW-IMPACT HYDRO
Question 4. You can't live in the Northwest without having an
opinion about the impact of dams on salmon and other endangered fish
species, but there is a real opportunity to develop low-impact hydro
projects at existing dams and irrigation canals. Some of these projects
can help pay for fish passage and provide increased in-stream flow that
can really benefit fish. The problem is that the regulatory hurdles are
making the perfect the enemy of the good and making some of these
projects too expensive to complete. For example, there is one project
in Oregon at Applegate Dam that is for a small 10 MW turbine at an
existing dam that doesn't have fish passage now that has already been
in the permitting process for 10 years. The Fish and Wildlife Service
has now taken the position that they want the developer to build an
off-site prototype of the fish screens and passage system. That's not
realistic. If confirmed, will you agree to work with FERC and
developers of these low-impact projects to find a better way of getting
them approved so that both the economic and fish benefits can be
realized?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the specific issues associated
with the Applegate Dam, if confirmed, I will work with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, other
federal agencies and developers to ensure permitting of projects that
balance the needs of fish and wildlife conservation and promote new
sources of renewable energy. I believe that finding common sense
solutions involves collaborative discussions, appropriate involvement
in project development, and timely permitting, and that these
components are the best way to achieve environmentally sound projects.
Responses of Rebecca Wodder to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Ms. Wodder, the Pacific Northwest relies on salmon and
steelhead species that are vital to communities up and down the West
Coast and depends on clean and affordable hydropower for the majority
of electricity consumed in the region as the backbone for our economy.
In the Northwest, federal agencies, state and tribal governments have
been working for years on a new Biological Opinion to preserve
Endangered Species Act listed salmon and steelhead populations in the
Lower Snake and Columbia River Basin under a federal court order and
protect the value of the Federal Columbia River Power System. The
Northwest has been locked in litigation to achieve an appropriate
balance between federal hydro power and federal salmon protections for
almost 17 years. The current Court-ordered collaborative process on the
2008 Biological Opinion has generated unprecedented regional consensus.
The Obama Administration supports the science that underpins the 2008
Biological Opinion and the bottom-up, collaborative, science-based
approach it takes to protecting salmon. Your current employer, American
Rivers, is a plaintiff in the court challenge to the current Federal
Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion. Given the conflict that
would arise if you are confirmed, will you commit to recusing yourself
from any Endangered Species Act matter relating to the Federal Columbia
River Power System and the 2008 Biological Opinion?
Answer. I am no longer employed at American Rivers, having resigned
my position on July 15, 2011. As I stated at my hearing, if confirmed,
I will voluntarily recuse myself from participating in any Interior
Department decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for the
full time I serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks. I will abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the
applicable ethics rules and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I
will regularly seek the assistance and guidance of the Department's
Ethics Office. I have consulted with the Department's Ethics Office and
understand that, as provided by the terms of my ethics agreement and
the Administration's ethics pledge, I will not participate for two
years in any particular matters involving specific parties in which
American Rivers is a party or represents a party. It is important to
note that, should I be confirmed as Assistant Secretary, federal
management of the lower Snake River dams would not fall under my
purview.
Question 2. Ms. Wodder, will you commit to recusing yourself from
any meeting, correspondence, action or influence in any way, or agency
decision that is directly or indirectly related to pending legal
proceedings in which American Rivers is currently engaged?
Answer. As I stated at my hearing, if confirmed, I will voluntarily
recuse myself from participating in any Interior Department decisions
regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for the full time I serve as
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I will abide by
the terms of my ethics agreement, including the applicable ethics rules
and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I will regularly seek the
assistance and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office. I have
consulted with the Department's Ethics Office and understand that, as
provided by the terms of my ethics agreement and the Administration's
ethics pledge, I will not participate for two years in any particular
matters involving specific parties in which American Rivers is a party
or represents a party. I also understand that the question of whether I
would be recused from working on issues or matters ``indirectly related
to pending proceedings in which American Rivers is currently engaged''
is important and complex and when such questions arise, I will seek the
assistance and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office.
Question 3. Ms. Wodder, hydropower is the largest source of clean,
renewable energy in the United States, and Washington state produces
almost a third of the nation's total. This affordable, emissions-free,
and renewable power source has helped attract new business investments
to the Pacific Northwest, including BMW's selection of Moses Lake, WA,
as the home of its only carbon fiber manufacturing facility in North
America, and a host of new Internet data centers. Nearly 75 percent of
Washington's electricity is generated from hydropower, and the same
dams irrigate Eastern Washington's farms which produce top crops such
as apples, cherries, hops, and wheat. One of the concerns I have heard
raised about your nomination is that as President of American Rivers
you proved to be hostile to hydropower and worked to reduce its use in
any way possible. Is this indeed the case, and how do you think it
would affect your decision making as Assistant Secretary if your
nomination is approved by the U.S. Senate?
Answer. Throughout my tenure as President, American Rivers worked
collaboratively with the hydropower industry to improve both energy
generating capacity and environmental performance at the nation's
hydropower dams. American Rivers recognizes that hydropower, properly
sited, operated, maintained and mitigated, is an important part of our
nation's energy mix. During my tenure, American Rivers and its partners
worked through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's)
relicensing process provided by law to support the continued operation
of hydropower dams with more than 16 thousand megawatts of capacity.
Under my leadership, the organization worked with FERC to
facilitate and improve hydropower relicensing. In the early to mid
1990s, the licensing process was characterized by litigation and
conflict. Shortly after my arrival, American Rivers opened a dialogue
with members of the hydropower industry, as well as federal agencies
and other stakeholders, to facilitate collaboration and settlement of
hydropower conflicts. During that time, American Rivers also worked to
negotiate new regulations for FERC known as the Integrated Licensing
Process, which set up new timetables, cut down on process, improved
permitting, and supported better, more integrated decisions among the
various agencies with statutory responsibility. These regulations have
been applauded by industry, agencies, and NGOs alike.
Domestic energy development is a top priority of both President
Obama and Secretary Salazar. If confirmed, I would support the
Administration's efforts in this regard and guide a safe and
responsible approach to balancing energy and environmental needs.
Question 4. Ms. Wodder, last April the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources passed a bipartisan bill I cosponsored called the Hydropower
Improvement Act. The goal of the bill is to grow the domestic supply of
hydropower and spur job creation in an industry that employs more than
300,000 people. Specifically, the Hydropower Improvement Act would
improve the development timeline for conduit and small hydropower
projects and explore a two-year process for hydropower development at
non-powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects. Further, the
Act establishes a competitive grants program and directs the Department
of Energy to produce and implement a research, development, and
deployment plan for increased hydropower capacity. The bill also calls
for studies on increased development at Bureau of Reclamation
facilities and in-conduit projects, as well as suitable pumped storage
locations. Can you explain why American Rivers opposed this
legislation?
Answer. American Rivers did not oppose this legislation. In fact,
American Rivers testified in support of S. 629, The Hydropower
Improvement Act, on March 31, 2011. American Rivers' staff worked
closely with the National Hydropower Association and the Senate Energy
Committee staff to develop this legislation.
Question 5. Ms. Wodder, from the rainforests of the Olympic
National Park, to the Icy Wilderness of the North Cascades National
Park, to the iconic Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington state is home
to three of the nation's crown jewels of the National Park System.
Every year, over 7 million visitors come to our national parks which
are the centerpiece for a $200 million dollar per year outdoor
recreation industry in Washington state and provide my constituents and
visitors with a unique natural experience that can be difficult to find
on multiple use lands. Unfortunately, however, devastating storms and
tremendous funding shortfalls for a number of years is compromising the
ability of the National Park Service to protect our park resources. We
have an historic opportunity to turn this trend around with the one
hundredth anniversary of the creation of the National Park System only
five years away. Would you agree with me that when visiting the
National Parks visitors expect a different quality of experience than
they do when visiting other public lands? Can you provide your views
about National Park System management and how National Parks might be
different from other federal lands?
Answer. National parks have a special place in the hearts of many
Americans and international visitors. I believe that visitors to our
national parks expect, and receive, quality recreational and
educational experiences. National parks are of intrinsic value to the
public because of their scenic beauty and the recreational
opportunities they provide, and to the scientific community because of
their wealth of natural and cultural resources. As well as providing
quality experiences for many millions of people, parks generate a great
deal of economic activity in surrounding communities and are the
primary source of revenue for some gateway communities. In terms of
management, the National Park Service has a unique mission, that of
preserving unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of
the national park system for the enjoyment of this and future
generations, when compared with other federal land management agencies,
that have multiple-use missions.
Question 6. Ms. Wodder, as you know, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is a critical program that provides money for many of
the Department's acquisitions of federal lands for public parks and
outdoor recreational use. Since former Washington state Senator, and
Chairman of this Committee, Scoop Jackson created the fund in 1965, the
LWCF have been used to acquire more than 4.5 million acres of unique
lands, an area roughly equal to the size of New Jersey. Money from the
LWCF's Stateside Grants Program has been essential in helping states
and municipalities secure parks and green pace in the rapidly
urbanizing west. I have heard from many of my municipalities that the
small amounts of money awarded in the Stateside Grants Program go a
long way in leveraging the purchase and permanent protection of a
unique piece of property that can be enjoyed by the local citizens. We
are very close to completing land acquisitions from willing sellers
inside recent additions to Mt. Rainier National Park. Will you support
efforts to prioritize LWCF funds directed towards completing land
acquisitions at Mt. Rainier National Park?
Answer. I agree that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a
critical program to ensure access to public parks, conservation and
recreational areas. These funds support State and local governments'
efforts to establish urban parks and community green spaces; to restore
and provide public access to rivers, lakes and other water resources;
and to conserve natural landscapes for public outdoor recreation use
and enjoyment. I have been advised that the National Park Service
prepares an annual request for Federal land acquisition funding through
the Federal budget process, including specific requests from each park
unit that has land acquisition funding needs, regional ranking of these
requests, and national ranking of all requests from all regions within
the National Park Service. I understand that Mount Rainier National
Park land acquisition has been both a regional and national priority
for the past several years. If confirmed, I commit to working with you
and other interested Members of Congress, the National Park Service,
the Secretary and the Administration to ensure that Mount Rainier's
resource protection needs are met.
Responses of Rebecca Wodder to Questions From Senator Murkowski
OIL AND GAS
ANWR
Question 1. One of the leading issues in Alaska is finding a way to
generate more crude oil production to help keep the Trans-Alaska
pipeline in operation in the future. One way for that to happen is to
tap the oil under the Arctic coastal plain lying under the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. I have introduced legislation to open ANWR
while limiting surface development to no more than 2,000 acres; I have
also introduced legislation to permit only subsurface exploration and
development of ANWR, currently allowing only directional drilling of
the refuge from state land and waters outside of the refuge. Eventually
I would hope that surface oil technology would allow the refuge to be
fully tapped underground without any impacts to the wildlife and
environment on the surface. What, if confirmed, will be your position
toward allowing subsurface development of the Arctic coastal plain?
Answer. Advancements in technology that make access to resources
safer and reduce the environmental impacts of development represent
significant and welcome progress. With this in mind, I share the
Secretary's and the President's view that the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is a very special place that must be protected. I am not
familiar with the details of subsurface exploration and development of
oil and gas resources, but if confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller
understanding of this issue and would be happy to meet with you
personally to discuss it.
Question 2. Your resume includes work on the Alaska National
Interests Lands Conservation Act, the Act which created millions of
acres of new wilderness and wildlife refuge in my state. With regard to
the 1002 area of the Coastal Plain, which was set aside expressly for
oil and gas exploration and where we have allowed for some exploratory
drilling, have you had a chance to view my bill, S. 351, which was
introduced with bipartisan support?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review S. 351.
a. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held
a hearing about the technologies associated with new seismic
techniques and extended reach drilling that showed great and
really new possibilities for accessing the resource while
eliminating any permanent surface presence on these areas which
your work has sought to place off limits. Do you think that
accessing resources with new technology represents an
opportunity for more responsible development or is it a danger?
Answer. As I noted in the response to the previous question,
advancements in technology that make access to resources safer and
reduce the environmental impacts of development represent significant
and welcome progress. With this in mind, I share the Secretary's and
the President's view that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a very
special place that must be protected. I am not familiar with the
details of subsurface exploration and development of oil and gas
resources, but if confirmed, I commit to gaining a full understanding
of this issue and would be happy to meet with you personally to discuss
it.
HYDRO
Dam Construction
Question 1. As President of American Rivers, you opposed the
construction of new dams. You have drawn a distinction between your
views expressed as an officer of American Rivers and your personal
views. As an individual, can you see any possible scenario in which you
would support the construction of a structure that creates a new
impoundment on an otherwise free-flowing river or stream? Please answer
``yes'' or ``no.'' Are you familiar with Alaska's Susitna Dam project,
and if so, do you believe it should move forward?
Answer. Yes, I believe decisions like this should be made on a
case-by-case basis, and that with proper siting, operation and
mitigation, new dams can be appropriate, provide economic benefits and
support a healthy environment. No, I am not familiar with Alaska's
Susitna Dam project.
a. What is your view of the rights and obligations of the
Fish and Wildlife Service and State resource agencies with
respect to hydroelectric licensing under the Federal Power Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I will faithfully implement all applicable
laws, regulations and Administration policies. I do not have detailed
knowledge of the specific responsibilities of the Fish and Wildlife
Service under the Federal Power Act. I am aware from my experience that
the Fish and Wildlife Service and States have a responsibility and an
opportunity to balance conservation with hydroelectric generation
needs. The agencies' roles are to ensure that fish and wildlife,
especially aquatic resources and habitats, are given full consideration
in the licensing process. A primary role of the Fish and Wildlife
Service under the Federal Power Act is that the agency may prescribe
the construction and maintenance of fish passage structures necessary
to ensure effective passage of fish. I am told that various authorities
support these roles.
b. Are you committed to prompt interactions between the
agencies? Can I count on you to intercede in cases where there
has been delay, especially to the extent that the Department of
Interior or any of its constituent agancies has failed to meet
a legal or regulatory deadline?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work to ensure prompt, timely
action and I will respect statutory and regulatory deadlines.
Question 2. Secretary Chu of DOE has said that hydro power can
generate 20,000 to 60,000 megawatts of new electricity simply by
electrifying existing dams. That doesn't even take into account what
pumped storage or conduit projects might produce. What is your position
toward allowing much less encouraging hydro power to produce far more
than the 7 percent of U.S. electricity that it currently accounts for?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to undertake efforts to evaluate
current practices to ensure that they are consistent with the
Administration's goal of promoting renewable energy sources, including
hydroelectric power, while conserving fish and wildlife. I support
efforts to create policies and incentives that could significantly
increase hydropower generating capacity via efficiency improvements
that enable more power to be generated from the same water, add new
capacity to existing hydropower dams, and add turbines to non-powered
dams.
Question 3. Please define ``obsolete or unsafe dam'' as it is used
on any Form 990 filed by American Rivers and signed by you or referred
to in any legal or administrative proceeding in which you were involved
or that was pursued under your direction.
Answer. An unsafe dam is defined by the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials (ASDSO) as a dam that is either structurally or
hydraulically deficient, leaving it susceptible to failure. Also, a dam
whose very existence represents a danger (threat of drowning or other
serious injury) to swimmers, boaters and other recreational users of a
river may be considered unsafe.
According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO):
There are more than 87,000 dams currently under state
regulation
10,127 have been classified as high hazard, meaning they
pose a serious threat to human life if they should fail
Of those high hazard dams, 1,333 have been identified as
structurally deficient or unsafe
In terms of obsolescence, The American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) estimates that the average life expectancy of a given dam is 50
years. In addition, dams may be considered obsolete if they no longer
serve the functions they were designed to provide.
Question 4. Please list the collaborative efforts regarding hydro-
electric facilities that you referenced in your testimony before the
committee on July 28, 2011 and your involvement with each.
Answer. American Rivers consistently considered the cost to replace
lost hydropower generating capacity and identified means of replacing
that generating capacity as part of its advocacy efforts. For example,
on the Penobscot River in Maine, a collaborative effort between a power
company, state and federal agencies, tribes, fishermen and
conservationists succeeded in maintaining all of the project's
hydropower generating capacity while removing two dams to open nearly
1,000 miles of historic river habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon.
Since 1995, American Rivers has either signed agreements or
provided technical and financial support to local conservation groups
that signed numerous comprehensive settlement agreements for the
relicensing of hydropower projects. By signing these agreements,
American Rivers and its partners affirmatively supported the continued
operation of hydropower dams with more than 16 thousand megawatts of
capacity.
During my tenure at American Rivers, the organization worked with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to facilitate and
improve hydropower relicensing. In the early to mid 1990s, the
licensing process was characterized by litigation and conflict. Shortly
after my arrival, American Rivers opened a dialogue with members of the
hydropower industry, as well as federal agencies and other
stakeholders, to facilitate collaboration and settlement of hydropower
conflicts. During that time, American Rivers also worked to negotiate
new regulations for FERC known as the Integrated Licensing Process,
which set up new timetables, cut down on process, improved permitting,
and supported better, more integrated decisions among the various
agencies with statutory responsibility. These regulations have been
applauded by industry, agencies, and NGOs alike.
Legal Matters and Lawsuits
Question 1. Please list all proceedings which you believe are
covered by your recusal pledge as expressed before the Committee in
testimony on July 28, 2011.
Answer. As I stated at my confirmation hearing, if confirmed, I
will voluntarily recuse myself from participating in any Interior
Department decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for the
full time I serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks. I will abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the
applicable ethics rules and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I
will regularly seek the assistance and guidance of the Department's
Ethics Office.
I have consulted with the Department's Ethics Office and understand
that, as provided by the terms of my ethics agreement and the
Administration's ethics pledge, I will not participate for two years in
any particular matters involving specific parties in which American
Rivers is a party or represents a party.
I understand from the Department's Ethics Office that if American
Rivers is a party or represents a party to a current proceeding
involving specific parties (such as a lawsuit), I will be recused from
that proceeding. I also understand that the phrase ``particular matters
involving specific parties'' has a specific meaning as defined by the
Office of Government Ethics, and that the specific cases from which I
will be recused are based upon the facts and circumstances raised by
the actual issue presented. I understand that the question of whether I
will be recused from working on issues or matters raised in previous
cases in which American Rivers was a party but where the cases are no
longer pending, is important and complex and when such questions arise,
as I noted above, I will seek the assistance and guidance of the
Department's Ethics Office.
Finally, I have attached a spreadsheet provided by American Rivers
that describes cases during my tenure at American Rivers in which
American Rivers was plaintiff or co-plaintiff, cases in which American
Rivers was a petitioner in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
proceedings, cases in which American Rivers submitted an amicus brief,
and cases in which American Rivers intervened primarily on behalf of
the Federal government as an intervenor-defendant.
Question 2. With respect to all litigation and/or formal dispute
resolution activities that were engaged in by you or under your
ultimate direction by American Rivers, Inc. (or any affiliate of
American Rivers, Inc. of which you were an officer or director) on the
day you resigned as an officer or director of American Rivers, Inc. and
any such affiliate and during the two year period prior to your
resignation, please provide a complete list of the proceedings
(including docket numbers or other identifiers). To the extent that you
were a party to the proceeding or the participation of American Rivers
in the proceeding was under your ultimate direction, please include,
a. All state and Federal court cases in which American Rivers
was a party, intervenor or amicus curiae; or filed, prepared,
advised on or counseled on any documents or testimony on behalf
of such a party; including all actions that were settled,
dismissed, dropped, stayed, arbitrated, or otherwise resolved.
b. All regulatory and administrative actions in which
American Rivers was a party, intervenor or amicus curiae; or
filed, prepared, advised on or counseled on any documents or
testimony on behalf of such a party; including all actions that
were settled, dismissed, dropped, stayed, arbitrated, or
otherwise resolved.
c. All state and Federal court cases, and all regulatory and
administrative actions, in which American Rivers provided or
was providing financial, legal, technical, administrative, or
any other kind of substantive support for any party as
described in subpart a) or b).
Answer. Please see the response to the previous question. With
respect to the additional information requested by this question, I no
longer work at American Rivers and understand that American Rivers does
not maintain a comprehensive record of the requested information.
Question 3. Please describe the procedures or practices you
followed during your tenure as CEO to determine whether to engage in or
report on the progress of any of the matters described in the foregoing
question. Please include any written directives, policy guidelines or
mission statement prepared or issued by you or under your ultimate
direction regarding such matters.
Answer. I have attached a copy of the Litigation Approval
Procedures for American Rivers. As provided in that document, decisions
on whether to enter into litigation matters are made by the Litigation
Review Committee of the Board of Directors and the General Counsel.
Although I participated in discussions about major issues raised by
such matters, as CEO of American Rivers, I had no formal role in this
decision-making process.
Question 4. For the period of your tenure as CEO, please describe
your responsibilities concerning and involvement with the
organization's efforts in legal or regulatory cases, rulemakings,
applications or other administrative proceedings that involved the
activities described in Part III, subpart 4 of the Organization's IRS
Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) for 2009 and
prior years, including, for example, projects such as ``logging,
mining, drilling or damming near rivers,'' ``removing obsolete or
unsafe dams,'' or ``protecting wetlands and other natural landscapes
that provide clean water.''
Answer. As President and CEO, I had overall responsibility for the
organization's strategic, programmatic and financial operations. Being
responsible for the overall strategic leadership of the organization,
and not being an attorney, I was not directly involved in legal or
regulatory cases, rulemakings, applications, or other administrative
proceedings.
Question 5. During your nomination hearing before the Environment
and Public Works Committee last week you responded that you were only a
party to 16 lawsuits during your time at American Rivers; can you
please address the discrepancy in the figures?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing before this
Committee, it is my understanding that American Rivers was the
plaintiff or co-plaintiff in 16 cases during my tenure. I have attached
a spreadsheet provided by American Rivers that describes these cases.
This spreadsheet also identifies cases in which American Rivers was a
petitioner in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proceedings,
cases in which American Rivers submitted an amicus brief, and cases in
which American Rivers intervened primarily on behalf of the Federal
government as an intervenor-defendant.
Question 6. What is your view of the impact of litigation upon the
work of the Fish and Wildlife Service? Would you agree that litigation
over listing petitions has interfered with the listing or effective
protection of endangered species? What is your view of environmental
organizations who repeatedly sue to prevent energy and economic
development?
Answer. I understand that a high volume of listing petitions,
together with litigation to enforce deadlines related to those
petitions, has obliged the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to divert
substantial resources to making petition findings rather than listing
proposals and final determinations. That has limited the FWS's ability
to set and adhere to priorities in its listing program and has likely
delayed protection of some high priority species. I believe strongly
that a transparent, collaborative approach to problem-solving and
looking for ways to resolve environmental concerns while balancing the
need for development is more productive than costly, contentious and
time-consuming litigation-driven decision making. I understand and
appreciate the current context of limited budgets and the need to
ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently to accomplish
our common goals. I believe settlements negotiated between parties can
accomplish these important objectives and is the interest of all
stakeholders. In the context of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
effective implementation of the ESA must be responsive to both the
needs of imperiled trust resources and the concerns of the public. I am
aware that the FWS recently reached an agreement with a frequent
plaintiff group on a multi-year work plan that, if approved by the
courts, will enable the FWS to systematically review and address the
needs of more than 250 candidate species over a period of six years to
determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. If confirmed as Assistant
Secretary, I commit to working with all of you on this Committee and my
counterparts in the Administration to follow the Secretary's lead in
making implementation of the ESA less complex, less contentious, and
more effective.
Question 7. [No Question]
Question 8. Please provide copies of promotional and fundraising
materials prepared over your signature or under your direction
concerning the activities noted on Form 990 and in the prior questions.
Answer. Attached are photocopies of promotional and fundraising
materials for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 that were provided by American
Rivers.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Materials have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Lands
Question 1. Concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in
Alaska, the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
contains a provision, Section 1326, that bars the permanent withdrawal
of more than 5,000 acres in Alaska, without specific approval of
Congress. The Department earlier this year launched a new planning
effort for ANWR where the department refused to rule out seeking the
creation of additional wilderness on the coastal plain, in addition to
the more than 8 million acres that is already wilderness in the refuge.
What is your view of the Department's ability to create new wilderness
areas in Alaska, on top of the 58 million acres already so designated
in Alaska?
Answer. If confirmed, I will faithfully implement all applicable
laws, regulations and Administration policies. I appreciate that Sec.
1326 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provides
that Congressional approval is needed for permanent withdrawals in
Alaska of more than 5,000 acres. Under the Wilderness Act, only
Congress can add lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Izembek Refuge
Question 2. The Congress in 2009 approved legislation to permit a
land exchange where the State of Alaska and the King Cove Native
Corporation would trade 61,000 acres to the federal government for
inclusion in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, in return for the
refuge giving up 206 acres to permit construction of a one-way road
between King Cove and Cold Bay, plus a small tract in Kodiak. The road
is dependent upon completion of an environmental impact statement on
the effects of the road on waterfowl in the refuge. Do you have any
views currently on the merits of the land exchange and will you commit
to attempt to finish the EIS in a timely manner?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the land exchange
issue and cannot provide any views on its merits at this time. I am
told that there is an ongoing process under the National Environmental
Policy Act to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess
the environmental impacts of a land exchange and identify a preferred
alternative. If confirmed, I commit to working with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure that the EIS is completed in as timely a
manner as practicable, in light of competing priorities and funding
constraints.
Question 3. While you were CEO at American Rivers, your former
organization listed the Bristol Bay Watershed as the #2 Most Endangered
River System, can you please tell me if your views are identical with
American Rivers' view on this subject?
Answer. It is my view that Bristol Bay Watershed is one of
America's most endangered river systems.
a. Can you please outline your views of the Pebble mine?
Would you be able to separate your personal views on a
controversial issue like this?
Answer. Although I am not yet fully informed of this issue, I agree
with your assessment that the Pebble mine is controversial, with strong
views on both sides of the issue. Should I be confirmed, my
responsibility would be to faithfully implement the policies and
positions of the Administration and administer all the applicable laws
and regulations. It is my understanding that Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is the lead agency on the watershed assessment, and that
the Corps of Engineers (Corps) would likely be the lead agency for
permitting. The Fish and Wildlife Service's role would be to provide
technical support and advise EPA or the Corps on fish and wildlife
concerns. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the Fish and
Wildlife Service has the scientific resources to provide a thorough and
objective assessment of the potential impacts to fish and wildlife.
Question 4. Navigable Waterways/ANILCA: A particularly troubling
issue many Alaskans are very concerned about is the jurisdiction over
Navigable Waterways within the State of Alaska. Recently, there has
been a number of high profile legal cases in which jurisdiction has
been questioned. Can you please address your views regarding
jurisdiction of navigable waterways within Alaska?
Answer. Although I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that there
is a well-established body of law recognizing federal authority to
regulate activities on waters, including navigable waters within
national park units in Alaska.
LWCF/National Park Service
Question 5. In the President's proposed budget the Department of
the Interior requested full funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund of $900 million. Roughly half of these funds were specified for
Federal Land Acquisition. Do you believe that the Federal Government
should be purchasing more land when each of the land management
agencies has a sizeable maintenance backlog, led by the National Park
Service with a $10 billion backlog? Shouldn't we take care of the lands
that we own before we purchase new land?
Answer. I understand that the funding proposed for federal land
acquisition in the FY 2012 budget request is part of a strategy that
reflects the President's agenda to protect America's great outdoors and
demonstrates a sustained commitment to a 21st Century conservation
agenda. It reflects the strong support for land conservation and
additional outdoor recreational opportunities that was voiced at the 51
America's Great Outdoors listening sessions held last summer.
I also understand that the lands identified for acquisition in the
budget request address the most urgent needs for recreation; species
and habitat conservation; and the preservation of landscapes, and
historic and cultural resources. Such acquisition may also assist the
government to achieve greater efficiencies that resolve management
issues. In addition, increased federal land acquisition funding would
provide more opportunities for landowners, if they wish, to sell their
property yet ensure that it will be protected in perpetuity rather than
developed in a way that threatens resources in national parks, wildlife
refuges, forests, and other public lands.
Addressing the deferred maintenance backlog remains a critical
priority as the Administration continues to protect and conserve our
country's natural and cultural resources.
Wilderness Society
Question 6. According to your biography, you were the Director of
Alaska Programs at the Wilderness Society, which gave you
``responsibility for all conservation campaigns involving Alaska public
lands.''
a. Please describe the campaigns you were involved in,
including the goals you hoped to accomplish.
Answer. I was the Alaska Director at The Wilderness Society over 25
years ago and my memory of specific campaigns is quite limited. I do
recall one campaign which involved an effort to open national parks in
Alaska to sport hunting; my goal in that campaign was to maintain the
decisions on sport hunting made by Congress when it enacted the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
b. Did you oppose any natural resource development in Alaska
during your tenure at the Wilderness Society? If so, which
resources, and where?
Answer. As stated above, I held this position over 25 years ago. I
do not recall any specific situation responsive to your question.
Question 7. I am quite concerned by reports that the National Park
Service is dragging its feet in responding to requests from electric
utilities to be allowed to upgrade and assure the safety and
reliability of electric transmission lines in park units, including
lines crossing units that were established by Congress in areas already
crossed by the power lines. For example, the National Park Service has
delayed more than a year its scheduled completion of an environmental
review of the proposed Susquehanna-Roseland transmission reliability
project in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It's an upgrade of an existing
line that, for just four miles of its route, crosses the Appalachian
Trail and Delaware Water Gap recreation area. The NPS study will now
take, at a minimum, three years. Moreover, the Service has charged the
proponents almost $5 million dollars for the study. For each mile of
upgrade, NPS is taking at least nine months and more than a million
dollars? If this is representative of the Service's approach to
fulfilling the Administration's pledge to upgrade America's
infrastructure, it sends a horrible signal of absurd delay and out of
control costs.
a. Do you endorse the way the NPS is performing its duties in
relation to the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission reliability
project? Are you comfortable with the time and expense imposed
by the Service on the transmission owners and their ratepayers?
Do you believe that a NPS NEPA review of a proposed reliability
upgrade to an existing transmission line using existing
easements and rights-of-way across NPS lands should cost more
than a million dollars per mile, and consume more than three
years?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific work of the NPS on this
project. If confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller understanding of
this issue and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss this
further.
b. Are you aware that Mid-Atlantic electricity customers,
including numerous federal agencies, will pay at least $200
million in extra grid congestion charges for each year of delay
in completion of the NPS review of the Susquehanna-Roseland
line? Do you believe that the NPS took these costs properly
into consideration in managing its review of the proposed
transmission upgrade?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific work of the NPS on this
project. If confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller understanding of
this issue and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss this
further.
c. Are you aware that the NPS, in performing its review of
the Susquehanna-Roseland project, has publicly proposed re-
routing the line through a national wildlife refuge, state
park, heavily developed residential neighborhoods, and mature
forest areas set aside for conservation purposes?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific work of the NPS on this
project. If confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller understanding of
this issue and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss this
further.
d. If you were confirmed, would you encourage or discourage
the NPS from attempting to engineer changes in the Northeastern
regional power grid, or other transmission grid areas? Is high
voltage transmission grid planning an institutional competence
of the National Park Service? If not, do you think it should
be, or are you comfortable with the Service's current mission
as a land and resource stewardship agency?
Answer. Again, I am not familiar with the specific work of the NPS
on this project. My understanding is that NPS' direct role in siting
powerlines is primarily to consider applications to locate power lines
in parks when a utility applies for such a use.
e. You have years of experience working with the Department
of the Interior, including the National Park Service, on
hydropower and other development and resource use matters. You
surely have some knowledge of the department's and agency's
energy infrastructure-related capacities and policies. Please
provide a written description, in detail, of what you
understand to be the National Park Service's current expertise
in electric transmission system planning. Please identify the
agency officials with training in and responsibility for high
voltage transmission system planning.
Answer. While I appreciate your confidence in my knowledge of the
department and agency's energy infrastructure, my experience has not
provided me with this level of knowledge. If confirmed, I commit to
gaining a fuller understanding of this issue and would be happy to meet
with you then to discuss this further.
f. Please identify the provisions of the NPS Organic Act, as
amended, or other statutes that grant the National Park Service
or other Interior Department agency, authority and
responsibility to site, evaluate, or otherwise administer any
aspect of the nation's high voltage electric transmission grid.
Answer. My experience has not provided me with this level of
knowledge. If confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller understanding of
this issue and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss this
further.
g. Please describe what law would authorize the National Park
Service to propose or make a decision to authorize placement of
a new high voltage electric transmission line in a unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, on a state park, on private
residential property, or on any land not under the direct
jurisdiction of the National Park Service.
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific work of the NPS on this
project. If confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller understanding of
this issue and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss this
further.
h. Given that the Interior Department has made it a high
priority to collaborate with other federal agencies and the
President in facilitating investments in energy and other
infrastructure across the country, and given the National Park
Service's large and strategically placed land holdings in the
East, Alaska, and other parts of the country, do you think the
NPS is helping or hurting the Department fulfill its
commitments? Do you think the Service's track record on
Susquehanna-Roseland reflects well on Secretary Salazar and
President Obama's ability to fulfill their promises or does it
make the President and Secretary look ineffectual?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific work of the NPS on this
project. If confirmed, I commit to gaining a fuller understanding of
this issue and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss this
further.
i. Is the NPS's approach to the Susquehanna-Roseland
reliability project representative of how you would like to see
the agency handle requests for agency approvals by public and
private utilities to upgrade energy, communications,
transportation and other infrastructure that was in place on
lands before those lands were included in the national park
system? If not, why not? If so, why?
Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specific work of the
NPS on this project, I believe the National Park Service has a
responsibility to examine applications made by utilities for permission
to use park lands for power line construction.
j. If confirmed, would you cooperate with Congress in
performing a comprehensive, public analysis of the decision
making process followed by the National Park Service in
connection with the NEPA analysis of the proposed Susquehanna-
Roseland transmission reliability project? Would you support
and cooperate in making available to Congress all records
associated with the agency's activities, and agree to allow the
relevant superintendents to testify before Congress, including
testimony under oath?
Answer. If confirmed, I would commit to learning more about this
project and would be happy to meet you with you then to discuss these
matters further.
Question 8. Let me say that to the organization's credit and, I
assume, to your credit, that tax return is easily accessible on its
website. The tax return lists as ``exempt purpose achievements'' for
two out of three of American Rivers' ``largest program services,''
removing dams and--and this is a direct quote-- ``preventing harmful
and destructive projects such as logging, mining, drilling or damming
near rivers.'' Now all of us are for conservation and responsible
environmental protection, but I think most Americans would agree that
equating ``logging, mining, drilling or damming near rivers'' with
``harmful projects'' is an overreach. I know Alaskans do not view
``logging, mining, drilling or damming near rivers to be ``harmful
projects.''
a. Do you believe that logging, mining, drilling or damming
near rivers is harmful?
Answer. Some aspects of these operations on or near rivers can
cause significant environmental harm to rivers. For this reason,
Congress provided in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protection
to the river corridor extending for an average of a quarter mile on
both sides of the river.
b. Please name damming, drilling, mining or logging projects
you've supported and helped move to fruition.
Answer. American Rivers' mission is to protect healthy rivers and
clean water for people, wildlife and nature so that local communities
can thrive. The organization has supported development activities, such
as efforts to improve operations of dams, levees and other river
infrastructure, in concert with mitigation measures to enhance
environmental performance of development activities and to promote
economic growth. For example, American Rivers worked with Alcoa Power
Generating, Inc., the Tennessee Clean Water Network, local communities
and property owners, the States of Tennessee and North Carolina, the
National Park Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the US Forest Service on a hydropower dam
relicensing for Alcoa's Tapoco hydropower project. Conservation
interests and resource agencies agreed to support the continued
operation of four hydropower dams on the Little Tennessee and Cheoah
rivers for the next 40 years. Alcoa agreed to restore flows to two
dewatered reaches, including a nine-mile section of the Cheoah River
that had been virtually dry for more than 50 years, to recover native
species and enable recreational activities from fishing to whitewater
boating, enhancing the local economy with tourist revenue. Alcoa also
approved a plan that preserves 10,000 acres of pristine lands adjacent
to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, ensures passage for four
endangered fish species, and provides more than $12 million for
conservation projects and enhanced recreational facilities.
c. With respect to dams--please provide an example of a dam
that is not, in the sense intended on the tax return of
American Rivers, ``obsolete or unsafe.''
Answer. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there
are approximately 80,000 large dams in the United States. Most of these
dams are safe and serving useful purposes. During my tenure, American
Rivers did not advocate the removal of safe and useful dams, with the
exception of four dams on the lower Snake River, due to the need to
recover endangered salmon.
Responses of Rebecca Wodder to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1a. Please provide a list of all policy positions, legal
actions or threats of legal action, press releases, policy analysis, or
public statements made by American Rivers or officials with American
Rivers during the time you served as CEO with which you disagreed or
took an opposing view.
Answer. I do not recall any instances. I stand by the work I did in
my capacity as President and CEO of American Rivers. Throughout my
career, my philosophy toward problem-solving has been an open,
transparent and collaborative approach that includes a robust analysis
of all alternatives. I believe this approach produces lasting solutions
that best meet the needs of all stakeholders. As President and CEO of
American Rivers, I had overall responsibility for the organization's
strategic, programmatic and financial operations. In this capacity, I
embraced and encouraged points of view that were different from my own
as sources for new ideas, consensus and ultimately better decisions.
Question 1b. Please provide a short explanation of what action you
took as CEO, if any, to articulate your disagreement with the policy
positions, legal actions, press releases, policy analysis, or public
statements by American Rivers or officials with American Rivers.
Answer. See answer to 1.a.
Question 1c. Please provide a list of all policy positions, legal
actions or threats of legal action, press releases, policy analysis or
public statements made by American Rivers or officials with American
Rivers during the time you served as CEO with which you now disagree or
oppose.
Answer. I do not recall any instances. I stand by the work I did in
my capacity as President and CEO of American Rivers. Throughout my
career, my philosophy toward problem-solving has been an open,
transparent and collaborative approach that includes a robust analysis
of all alternatives. I believe this approach produces lasting solutions
that best meet the needs of all stakeholders. As President and CEO of
American Rivers, I had overall responsibility for the organization's
strategic, programmatic and financial operations. In this capacity, I
embraced and encouraged points of view that were different from my own
as sources for new ideas, consensus and ultimately better decisions.
Question 2. When asked on August 5, 2007, ``what environmental
group do you most admire and why?'' you stated:
I am a huge fan of the work of Center for the New
American Dream, which is offering practical choices for
living a more sustainable and high quality of life in
the U.S.
When you made that statement, were you speaking as President of
American Rivers, or as yourself?
Answer. I was being interviewed as the President of American
Rivers, but this was a personal opinion.
Question 3. Do you agree with this statement from the Center for a
New American Dream?
But even if GDP growth could solve the unemployment
problem, it shouldn't, because the cost in greenhouse
gas emissions is prohibitive.
If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why.
Answer. First, I would like to clarify that I have no contact with
this organization, do not follow their work, and have not for many
years, so I do not have the context by which to make any judgment or
statement on what they mean by this statement. Let me make it clear
however that I believe that the United States must continue to grow to
ensure a healthy and strong future for our country and our children. I
hope that the decisions we, as a country, make will put us on a path of
sustainable growth where we can achieve long-term opportunities for all
Americans and at the same time use our resources in the most effective
way possible.
Question 4. Do you agree with the following statement below on page
3 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report entitled, ``Rising to
the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating
Climate Change''? If not, please explain why not.
As a Service, we are committed to examining
everything we do, every decision we make, and every
dollar we spend through the lens of climate change.
Answer. I am familiar with the views of Dan Ashe, Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), on this statement, and my views are
similar to his. He has said that he agrees with the statement within
its context as part of a larger strategic plan. The FWS's Climate
Change Strategic Plan is aspirational, and not a mandatory requirement.
The plan is not a regulation, a budget directive, or a policy
requirement.
Climate change is one of several factors the FWS considers in
assessing the well-being of species, and fulfilling its mission to work
with others in conserving fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats.
The FWS is not responsible for the regulation of greenhouse gases, nor
is it the FWS's role to address these causative factors through any of
its statutory or regulatory authorities. Indeed, none of its statutory
or regulatory authorities, including the Endangered Species Act,
provide an appropriate mechanism to regulate greenhouse gases.
The FWS is authorized and obligated, by statute, to conserve fish
and wildlife resources, and therefore has an obligation to consider
climate change, like other stressors on fish and wildlife and their
habitat, in order to make responsible and fully-informed management
decisions that make the best use of taxpayer dollars.
If I am confirmed, it will be my responsibility and commitment to
ensure that decisions will be made considering the full breadth of the
best available science, and will be firmly based on the applicable
statutory, regulatory, and policy frameworks.
Question 5. You have made a number statements supporting taking
action to address climate change in your career at Americans Rivers. If
confirmed, do you believe your agency, in conjunction with other
agencies, can predict with certainty what the weather, and the
subsequent impact on the landscape, will be like in Wyoming in 5 years,
10 years, or 50 years from now?
Answer. No, it is not yet possible to predict with certainty the
weather for any part of the Earth years into the future. While there is
very broad agreement among a wide range of scientists, specializing in
relevant fields, about the fact that the climate is changing, there is
less understanding about precisely how this will affect the Earth's
natural systems, including the weather in any given part of the world.
For instance, although the Earth's surface is warming, it is possible
that parts of the Earth will actually become cooler as a result.
Questions about how climate change will affect the weather and other
natural systems are the subject of on-going scientific investigation
that is of great importance to land and wildlife managers. If
confirmed, I will rely on the best available science on this issue to
guide decisions in the future.
Question 6. Can you predict, with certainty, how the Greater
Yellowstone grizzly bear population will respond to environmental
changes 5, or 10, or 50 years from now?
Answer. No, I personally cannot predict with certainty how the
grizzly bear will respond to environmental changes over the long term.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has biologists and scientists who have
made projections regarding how the population will respond, but I am
not familiar with that research or its findings. If confirmed, I would
be happy to meet with you to discuss this issue further.
Question 7. Do you believe that computer predictive models today
can accurately predict the weather, and the subsequent impact on the
landscape, in Wyoming in 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years from now? If
not, if confirmed, will you rely on such computer models to make
decisions to commit taxpayer dollars to protect species based in whole
or in part on predictive computer models that can not accurately
predict the weather?
Answer. I am not a meteorologist or climatologist, so I am not an
expert in the accuracy of weather modeling. However, I think decisions
regarding the effects of future weather and climate conditions should
be made using the best available science.
Responses of Rebecca Wodder to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Ms. Wodder, over the last 25 years American Rivers has
filed or been a party to more than 140 lawsuits, many involving the
federal government as an adverse party. If confirmed, you or someone
under your direct authority will be on the opposite side of the
negotiating table from American Rivers or a similar organization trying
to settle disputes. What can you point to in your professional life
that would assure us that you would represent the American people's
best interests and not that of the environmental lobby?
Answer. First, I can only speak to the 16.5 years that I served as
CEO of American Rivers. I have attached a spreadsheet provided by
American Rivers that describes the cases in which American Rivers was a
plaintiff or co-plaintiff, cases in which American Rivers was a
petitioner in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proceedings,
cases in which American Rivers submitted an amicus brief, and cases in
which American Rivers intervened primarily on behalf of the Federal
government as an intervenor-defendant. I am not a lawyer and did not
participate directly in legal negotiations on these cases.
Importantly, I fully appreciate the difference between my former
role as an advocate and, should I be confirmed, my future role as an
administrator of the laws and directives of Congress. This
understanding derives from more than 30 years of working with federal
public servants and working as a legislative aide to Senator Gaylord
Nelson from Wisconsin.
Should I be confirmed, my approach to resolving controversial
natural resource issues will be to reach out proactively, especially to
those whose livelihoods are at stake, and listen carefully to their
concerns and ideas. I will seek balanced approaches that take the needs
of all stakeholders into account. I believe that lasting conservation
solutions are best achieved through an open and transparent
collaborative process that includes a robust analysis of all
alternatives.
Consistent with this approach, during my tenure at American Rivers,
the organization worked with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to facilitate and improve hydropower relicensing. In the early
to mid 1990s, the licensing process was characterized by litigation and
conflict. Shortly after my arrival, American Rivers opened a dialogue
with members of the hydropower industry, as well as federal agencies
and other stakeholders, to facilitate collaboration and settlement of
hydropower conflicts. During that time, American Rivers also worked to
negotiate new regulations for FERC known as the Integrated Licensing
Process, which set up new timetables, cut down on process, improved
permitting, and supported better, more integrated decisions among the
various agencies with statutory responsibility. These regulations have
been applauded by industry, agencies, and NGOs alike.
Question 2. Please provide the Committee the year-by-year total of
any sums that American Rivers received during your tenure from the
federal government in grants, attorney fees, or through any other
program.
Answer. While I no longer work at American Rivers, I have asked
them if they can provide me with the requested information. Attached is
a list of the year-by-year total of moneys that American Rivers
received during my tenure from the Federal government in grants and
through other programs. I am not aware of any moneys that American
Rivers received in attorneys fees from the Federal government.
______
Response of Charles D. McConnell to Question From Senator Wyden
LNG EXPORTS
Question 1. Your office is responsible for LNG export permits and
recently approved a permit for an LNG terminal on the Gulf coast to be
allowed to export U.S. gas. Dow Chemical testified before the Energy
Committee just last week that tying U.S. natural gas prices to a global
natural gas market would only raise U.S. prices and curtail one of the
few competitive advantages that U.S. manufacturers are expected to
have--low natural gas prices. I want to know what you think the U.S.
policy on natural gas exports should be and whether your office is
going to consider the overall impact on US consumers and
competitiveness when considering export permits, not just the benefits
to U.S. gas producers and terminal owners?
Answer. Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, anyone who wishes
to export natural gas from the United States to a foreign country, or
import natural gas to the United States from a foreign country, must
first secure an order from the Secretary of Energy authorizing it to do
so. This authority has been delegated to the Under Secretary under
Delegation Order No. 00-002.00L (April 29, 2011), and further
redelegated from the Under Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy under Redelegation Order No. 00-002.04E (April 29, 2011).
The importation and/or exportation of natural gas from/to a nation with
which there is in effect a free trade agreement requiring national
treatment for trade in natural gas, and the importation of liquefied
natural gas, is deemed by law to be consistent with the public
interest, and applications for such importation or exportation must be
granted without modification or delay. In the case of a proposed export
to a non-free trade agreement country, the Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, pursuant to redelegation authority, is required to issue
such order, unless after opportunity for hearing, he finds the proposed
export will not be consistent with the public interest.
In evaluating an export application to non free trade agreement
countries, the Assistant Secretary considers any issues required by law
or policy, and to the extent determined to be necessary or appropriate
takes into account numerous factors in making this public interest
determination, including the domestic need for the natural gas proposed
for export; adequacy of domestic natural gas supply; U.S. energy
security; the impact on the U.S. gross domestic product, including the
impact on consumers, industry, and domestic natural gas prices; jobs
creation; U.S. balance of trade; international considerations;
environmental considerations; consistency with the DOE policy of
promoting competition in the marketplace through free negotiation of
trade arrangements; and other issues raised in public comments and by
interveners deemed relevant to the proceedings. I believe the
provisions set forth in the Natural Gas Act represent an appropriate
balance for considering factors related to LNG export application
approvals.
Responses of Charles D. McConnell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
RELIABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS OF EPA RULEMAKING
Question 1a. The EPA is aggressively promulgating a series of new
rules and regulations on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to
cooling water intakes. Much of these efforts would have a direct impact
on the use of coal--our most abundant, affordable fossil fuel--to
generate power in the United States. My primary concern about these
rules, aside from the at-times questionable manner in which they're
being pursued, is the impact they could have on the reliability and
affordability of electric supplies. Affordable and secure sources of
energy are key to American competitiveness.
Do you share any of these concerns?
Answer. Yes, I share your concern and desire to understand the
potential impacts pending EPA regulations may have on the reliability
and affordability of electric supplies. Sound Federal governance
demands prudent evaluation of all benefits and costs associated with
potential Federal regulations.
Question 1b. The EPA is aggressively promulgating a series of new
rules and regulations on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to
cooling water intakes. Much of these efforts would have a direct impact
on the use of coal--our most abundant, affordable fossil fuel--to
generate power in the United States. My primary concern about these
rules, aside from the at-times questionable manner in which they're
being pursued, is the impact they could have on the reliability and
affordability of electric supplies. Affordable and secure sources of
energy are key to American competitiveness.
If confirmed, how do you plan to interact with the EPA in the
interagency process on these matters?
Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy, in collaboration and
coordination with other DOE offices, interacts with EPA through the
formal interagency review process coordinated by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and
Budget on pending EPA regulations impacting Fossil Energy concerns. In
addition, technical staff at DOE are working with EPA technical staff
to help ensure that all current technical and scientific data is
available for consideration. If confirmed, I will take an active role
in the interagency review process and work to make the analyses and
reviews efficient and effective, in line with the President's Executive
Order.
Question 1c. The EPA is aggressively promulgating a series of new
rules and regulations on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to
cooling water intakes. Much of these efforts would have a direct impact
on the use of coal--our most abundant, affordable fossil fuel--to
generate power in the United States. My primary concern about these
rules, aside from the at-times questionable manner in which they're
being pursued, is the impact they could have on the reliability and
affordability of electric supplies. Affordable and secure sources of
energy are key to American competitiveness.
Are you aware of the `Statements of Energy Impacts' that agencies
complete in conjunction with major rulemakings (as defined by Executive
Order 12866), and do you believe that those analyses could be made more
useful for both the Office of Management and Budget as well as elected
representatives in Congress who must decide if agency actions are
reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent?
Answer. Earlier this year President Obama reaffirmed the
principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary
regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 almost
two decades ago. Our regulatory system must protect public health,
welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the
best available science. It must allow for public participation and an
open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce
uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and
least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. And it must take
into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. If
confirmed, I will take an active role in the interagency review process
and work to make the analyses and reviews efficient and effective, in
line with the President's Executive Order.
CLEAN COAL FUNDING
The FY 2012 Budget Request sought no funding at all for clean coal
demonstration projects because, ``these projects are already strongly
supported through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.''
Indeed, the Department received $3.4 billion for carbon sequestration
work under the Stimulus. Deploying the next generation of coal-fired
technologies is vitally important, given the affordability and domestic
availability of coal as an energy resource. But this is a lot of money,
and we need to be certain that it is being leveraged in the most
efficient way possible. I am concerned that the Department might be
overemphasizing the longer-term goal of deploying carbon sequestration
technologies at the expense of more attainable improvements in
efficiency and diversified utilization.
Question 2. Do you believe that the Department's coal-related
spending is sufficiently diversified, to include not only work on
carbon sequestration, but also work on improvements at existing plants;
progress on the efficiency of more conventional, new electric-
generating units that may be deployed in the near-term; and
gasification technologies for use in the production of plastics,
synthetic natural gas, liquid fuels, fertilizer, and other products?
Answer. DOE has supported the development of technologies
applicable to several of the areas identified, including efficiency
improvement, fuels, gasification technologies, and utilization of coal
and CO2 for chemical production. The development of
technologies for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) has become a
priority to ensure that technologies are available for the power and
other industry sectors to deploy at scale, and to meet the recent EPA
regulations for CCS. The DOE stands ready to continue and expand work
in the other areas of research, which have complementary benefits for
CCS and the reduction of greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere, to
meet the evolving needs of industry and the Nation.
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR CLEAN COAL
The Loan Guarantee Program, despite some growing pains, has
remained a relatively well-supported program in Congress. I am
concerned, however, that the Loan Guarantee Program's utility for clean
coal and other fossil-based energy resources has not been as robust as
it could be. While you would not be administering the Loan Guarantee
Program as an Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, if confirmed you
would certainly be in a position to explain the importance of
supporting everything from efficiency improvements, to gasification,
liquefaction, and carbon sequestration using the tools available at the
Loan Guarantee Program office. I am concerned that if this program does
not re-establish it's broad applicability to a wider variety of energy
sectors, it could lose much of the support it has enjoyed in recent
years.
Question 3a. If confirmed, how do you anticipate interacting with
the Loan Guarantee Program Office, not only as a resource on technical
matters but as an advocate for deploying the next generation of clean
coal technologies using all tools available to the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work very closely with the Loan
Programs Office to ensure the Department takes full advantage of the
synergy inherent in combining the results of our fossil energy
research, development, and demonstration work with the financial
support afforded by loan guarantees. Loan guarantees mitigate financial
risk for first movers willing to invest in clean energy technologies,
including advanced coal facilities and therefore will accelerate market
penetration of clean coal facilities, allowing the production of
electricity, fuels, and chemicals in the most environmentally-friendly
manner practicable.
Question 3b. The Loan Guarantee Program, despite some growing
pains, has remained a relatively well-supported program in Congress. I
am concerned, however, that the Loan Guarantee Program's utility for
clean coal and other fossil-based energy resources has not been as
robust as it could be. While you would not be administering the Loan
Guarantee Program as an Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, if
confirmed you would certainly be in a position to explain the
importance of supporting everything from efficiency improvements, to
gasification, liquefaction, and carbon sequestration using the tools
available at the Loan Guarantee Program office. I am concerned that if
this program does not re-establish it's broad applicability to a wider
variety of energy sectors, it could lose much of the support it has
enjoyed in recent years.
Do you share my concern that narrowing the utility of the Loan
Guarantee Program to certain technologies could harm the prospects for
ongoing support from Congress?
Answer. I fully recognize the important contribution that
government-sponsored financial support under the Loan Guarantee
Program, covering the many eligible energy technology sectors, has
played in the advancement of complex, large-scale, clean power and
alternative-fuel projects. If confirmed, I will work diligently with
the Secretary to ensure that the resources at my disposal are fully
used in conjunction with DOE programs to further our Nation's energy
independence and environmental objectives.
ALASKA ENERGY SOURCES
Question 4. The Arctic Energy Office is under NETL's umbrella and
is situated in Fairbanks. Do you view Arctic energy sources as an
important part of your (potential) office's portfolio? Will you commit
to keeping the Arctic Energy Office active and engaged? Do you have
thoughts on replacement after Brent Sheets' retirement?
Answer. I believe Arctic energy sources would be an important part
of my portfolio should I be confirmed. The Office of Fossil Energy is
actively working to keep the Arctic Energy Office staffed; NETL
assigned a staff member to the Office in early August to maintain
continuity in the relationships with important stakeholders in the
region like the University of Alaska and the industrial community.
In the current fiscal year, we are coordinating with the Office of
Science to continue a CO2 injection field test with
ConocoPhillips to explore novel methods of producing methane hydrates
while storing carbon dioxide. This will be a critical test for the
characterization of hydrate deposits as well as identifying an
important method for producing methane from hydrates.
CLEAN ENERGY IN ALASKA
Question 5. Can you talk about your commitment to exploring methane
hydrates--as I understand it, there are literally thousands of years
worth of clean energy supply if we can figure out how to commercialize
our offshore and onshore methane hydrate resource?
Answer. While global estimates of the methane hydrate resource vary
considerably, the energy content of methane occurring in hydrate form
is immense. However, future production volumes are speculative because
methane production from hydrate has not been documented beyond small-
scale field experiments. Methane hydrate research within the Office of
Fossil Energy aims to develop the tools and technologies to allow
environmentally safe methane production from arctic and other domestic
offshore hydrates.
In the current fiscal year, we will continue a CO2
injection field test with ConocoPhillips to explore novel methods of
producing methane hydrates while storing carbon dioxide. This will be a
critical test for the characterization of hydrate deposits as well as
identifying an important method for producing methane from hydrates. It
is being conducted in coordination with the Office of Science, whose
interest lies in the fundamental geochemistry associated with the
carbon-dioxide /methane exchange process.
UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION
There has been some demonstrated interest in the potential of
Underground Coal Gasification in the Beluga Coal Field near Cook Inlet.
This is very interesting to South Central Alaska since the Cook Inlet
area is running low of its lowest cost natural gas resources.
Underground or in-situ gasification may have potential in producing
synthetic natural gas, power, or feedstocks for liquid fuels and
chemicals. There may also be opportunities to perform underground coal
gasification in concert with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at
comparatively low cost. And this is not just a potential technology for
Alaska as there are sites in Wyoming and elsewhere in the U.S. that may
be good candidates for Underground Coal Gasification.
Question 6a. What is your view of the prospects for underground
coal gasification?
Answer. Over the past several years, Underground Coal Gasification
(UCG) has regained worldwide interest with many projects being
developed or in operation in several countries including Australia,
South Africa, China, and Canada. UCG has the potential to add to our
recoverable reserves that are not currently economically recoverable
because they are of too low heating value, too deep, or even too thin.
In a recent report to the DOE, the National Coal Council concluded that
UCG has the potential to increase recoverable coal reserves by 300
percent to 400 percent and appears to be cost-competitive with other
coal-based technologies. This technology requires RD&D to ensure safety
of environment and to fully understand the economics before being
deployed wide-scale in the U.S.
Question 6b. Does the Department have or do they plan a research
and development program centered on underground coal gasification? If
not, why not?
Answer. The DOE does not currently have a program that directly
supports the development or deployment of Underground Coal Gasification
(UCG) technology due to funding constraints. DOE together with Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) conducted research tests at Hoe
Creek and Rocky Mountain in Wyoming in the 1970s and 1980s. Several
additional tests were also conducted in the United States during the
period. Since those tests, work on UCG within the U.S. all but
disappeared until the mid-2000s when some small studies were conducted
to explore possible synergies of UCG with Carbon Sequestration, whereby
the CO2 can be placed back in the seam to avoid greenhouse
gas emissions. However, the more recent improvements in Carbon
Sequestration technology can be directly applied to research needs of
UCG.
CCS R&D AFTER MOUNTAINEER PROJECT SUSPENSION
Thinking long-term, carbon capture and sequestration could be
tremendously important to the future of coal. While there are some
encouraging activities underway, American Electric Power recently
decided against moving forward with its Mountaineer CCS project,
despite $334 million in support from the Stimulus bill.
Question 7a. Could you put the suspension of the Mountaineer
Project in context for us? Where does this leave the clean coal program
and DOE's work on CCS?
Answer. AEP has notified NETL's Contracting Officer of its decision
to dissolve the current Cooperative Agreement following the completion
of Phase 1 activities scheduled for September 30, 2011. While this
dissolution will end DOE's involvement in the project, AEP has said it
will place their proposed 235 MWe demonstration of the Chilled Ammonia
Process (CAP) on hold until such time that there is a regulatory
framework for CCS that will allow AEP to recover their investment
through the Public Utility Commission's rate recovery process.
DOE still has three other active CCS projects within the Clean Coal
Power Initiative (CCPI) program, including Southern Company's IGCC/CCS
project in Mississippi, NRG's post-combustion/CCS project in Texas, and
Summit's IGCC polygen/CCS project in Texas. In addition to these three
projects, DOE is currently renegotiating the Cooperative Agreement for
the HECA IGCC project in California in light of that project's planned
sale to SCS Energy. The major impacts of AEP's decision on the CCPI
program are two-fold: 1) Only one project will remain that addresses
CCS from the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants; and 2) None of
the remaining clean coal projects, other than FutureGen 2.0, will
address CO2 storage in saline formations. While utilizing
CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery significantly improves the
economic viability of CCS projects and will provide useful information
for CO2 in geologic formations, the data obtained is not
always directly applicable to storage in the vast saline aquifer
formations that exist in the U.S.
Question 7b. In February 2010, the President asked a federal task
force led by DOE and EPA to propose a plan to overcome the barriers to
the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage
within 10 years, with a goal of bringing five to 10 commercial
demonstration projects online by 2016. Last August the task force
issued its report. Where do we stand on that ``plan,'' and what are the
prospects for achieving that goal?
Answer. The DOE plans to meet the goal of having at least five
demonstration projects operational by 2016. Of the seven projects
included in the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and Industrial
Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) programs, five are on track to be in
operation by 2016. Three of those projects are already undergoing
construction including Southern Company's IGCC project, ADM's Biofuels
project, and Air Products' steam-methane reformer project. Also awarded
under the ARRA-funded ICCS program, RTI and Tampa Electric plan to
commence a large scale demonstration of CCS in a saline aquifer before
2016. In addition, several large-scale injection projects planned
through the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships will be
operational by 2016.
Question 7c. The odds of getting five to 10 commercial scale
demonstration projects online by 2016 seem low. Is this still an
Administration goal, as far as you know? If yes, please describe your
vision and strategy for getting the CCS activities back on track toward
achieving that goal.
Answer. The goal of having five to ten commercial-scale
demonstration projects in operation by 2016 remains the goal of the
Administration and is a high priority within the DOE. The DOE is
working diligently to manage the regulatory processes, design,
construction, and implementation of its portfolio of projects to offer
the highest probability that the Administration's goals will be
achieved. As stated above, the DOE is currently on track to have at
least five such projects in operation by 2016.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question 8. Do you have thoughts on soliciting and getting the
successful proposals such as the RPSEA program to receive funding in a
way for them to build upon their successes? What are the plans for
reinforcing this model and possibly applying it toward other technical
challenges within your purview? Do you plan to request an extension of
this successful program which expires in 2014?
Answer. Within the research portfolio administered by the Research
Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), every opportunity for
selected technologies to be fully evaluated is sought. Requests for
Proposals with emphasis on technologies that address environmental
sustainability and enhanced safety are issued by RPSEA under the
guidance of the Office of Fossil Energy consistent with the research
program called for pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title IX,
Subtitle J also referred to as ``Section 999''.
The Section 999 program has a sunset date of September 2014.
Current and future research efforts by the Office of Fossil Energy
related to this program focus on environmental sustainability and
enhanced safety, including risk assessment and mitigation. Going
forward, the Office of Fossil Energy will continually evaluate the
research portfolio and match it against outstanding R&D needs.
UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUELS
We routinely hear claims that America is running out of oil and
other natural resources, but a report from CRS that Senator Inhofe and
I requested tells a much different story. According to it, we have
tremendous unconventional resources: an estimated 100 billion barrels
of heavy oil, at least 800 billion barrels of oil shale, and perhaps as
much as 320,000 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrates.
Question 9a. Do you think it's important that the United States try
to commercialize those resources?
Answer. I agree that heavy oil, oil shale, and methane hydrate are
very significant domestic resources. Tied to these hydrocarbon
resources are energy security, economic development, and environmental
sustainability considerations. As we move towards a clean energy
future, these resources may play a critical role in the transition. The
U.S. will continue to use petroleum products, primarily for
transportation, for some time and the majority of these refined
products are imported. Natural gas, primarily methane, is integral to
the development of renewable energy resources; methane hydrate, if it
can be developed into a reliable supply source can add tremendously to
our energy portfolio--domestically and globally.
Question 9b. As Assistant Secretary, what will you do,
specifically, to promote the development of heavy oil, oil shale, and
methane hydrates? What will you say to administration officials who
strongly oppose and seek to block their development?
Answer. Within the Office of Fossil Energy, we are conducting
research focused on all three of these resources and view our research
as necessary underpinnings for their future development. During FY
2011, we've coordinated with the Office of Science and are planning to
move forward this coming field season on the next phase of a methane
hydrate test in Alaska--a field test designed to evaluate a carbon
dioxide/methane exchange concept.
Domestic oil production is an important part of our overall
strategy for energy security, but it must be done responsibly for the
safety of our workers and our environment. Domestic production can also
play a role in helping to achieve the President's goal of reducing our
oil imports by one-third in a decade.
Response of Charles D. McConnell to Question from Senator Barrasso
Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC) in Wyoming provides
small businesses and inventors excellent facilities to test and develop
new technologies. Last year the Administration required the facility to
operate as a user facility without providing the roadmap or tools to
implement that requirement.
RMOTC has testing potential for a number of different applications,
ranging from geothermal to carbon sequestration to oil and natural gas
to environmental safety. Without a strategic plan in place, the
Department risks wasting this valuable asset.
Question 1a. What is your plan for RMOTC over the next two years?
Answer. RMOTC testing activities in FY 2011 and FY 2012 will be
comprised of projects that are funded through 100 percent fully
reimbursable (funds-in) arrangements or fully funded by the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) Geothermal Technology
Program to validate co-produced and low-temperature geothermal
technologies. Some technology development companies will pay to test
their technologies at RMOTC while other inventors and technology
developers may strike strategic partnerships with end-users to fund
their testing at RMOTC. RMOTC will continue its collaboration with EERE
to provide a testing center in support of the Low-Temperature and Co-
Produced Geothermal activities.
Question 1b. What is the Department's plan for supporting the
testing mission while RMOTC transitions to a self-sustaining facility?
Answer. The Department's plans for RMOTC include the preparation of
a disposition plan for the facility. This plan for disposition will
include analyzing a potential transfer to the Department of the
Interior, transfer to an academic institution or other organization
that will maintain the RMOTC testing facility, and working with GSA for
possible sale or other disposition. Transferring the technology testing
portion of RMOTC to new ownership may provide the best opportunity to
be self-sustaining. While the disposition plan is prepared and
implemented over the next several years, the Department plans on
continuing to make the facility available for developers to conduct
testing through 100 percent fully reimbursable (funds-in) arrangements,
continuing production operations at NPR-3 as long as it remains
economic to do so, and continuing with environmental remediation of
those facilities that are no longer of value to NPR-3 production
operations, RMOTC testing operations, or the prospective new ownership.
Response of Charles D. McConnell to Question from Senator Hoeven
The model developed under Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 has been used to create an industry-directed public/private/
academia partnership focused on research and development to address the
safety, environmental and technical challenges associated with the
development of important new domestic energy resources. This is the
only federal program that currently addresses the safety, environmental
and technical challenges of the ultra-deepwater.
Yet in the wake of the DeepWater Horizon, DOE has slowed the review
and approval process for the program, potentially delaying important
federal investment in vital R&D to avoid similar incidents in the
future.
Question 1a. Can you please speak to how you will ensure timely
review and approval of plans and programs under your management--
including the 999 program--should you be confirmed?
Answer. The Deepwater Horizon Disaster and the growing public
concern with shale gas development continue to be significant drivers
for the Department's research program. DOE has refocused these research
programs on risk assessment and mitigation, enhanced safety, and
environmental sustainability. This focus has been presented to myriad
stakeholders and has been widely accepted as warranting Federal
investment.
In order to best address the research needs concerning offshore
development and hydraulic fracturing of shale wells, planning and
review processes have been deliberate during FY 2011. The Secretary has
asked both the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee and the Natural Gas
Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to review
and submit their recommendations on this new emphasis. The SEAB
delivered its Shale Gas Production 90-day report to the Secretary on
August 18, 2011.
Given this clear vision, planning and key document review
milestones have been established, and professional staff in both the
Office of Oil and Natural Gas and at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory will be attentive to work products and schedules so that
actions are completed in a timely manner.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2011.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chair, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, SD-410,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, SD-304,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James Inhofe,
Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 5D-410,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, SD-304
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators:
As you consider President Obama' s nomination of Ms. Rebecca Wodder
as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department
of the Interior, we respectfully write to let you know of our serious
concerns with her record as the head of American Rivers, a single-
purpose interest group focused on litigating against the federal
government and removing economically important infrastructure. We
seriously question whether she could adequately represent broader and
more balanced interests at the federal level, especially at a fragile
economic time with national unemployment exceeding nine percent.
The position for which Ms. Wodder has been nominated oversees the
management of at least 180 million federal acres and would have a
direct influence on current and potential federal regulations impacting
private lands, water rights, energy projects and other infrastructure.
This is troubling given her past activities at the Wilderness Society
and American Rivers, a non-governmental organization with a long record
of receiving American taxpayer dollars while actively litigating
against the federal government on multiple fronts. Between 1988 and
2011, American Rivers has either sued or been a party to 150 lawsuits
against various parties, mostly the federal government. In fact,
American Rivers is currently party to seven lawsuits against American
taxpayers and the federal government.
One illuminating piece of litigation revolves around American
Rivers' longstanding lawsuit against the federal government's operation
of four multi-purpose dams in the Pacific Northwest. These dams,
located on the lower Snake River in Washington state, provide multiple
benefits including emissions-free, renewable hydroelectricity (enough
power to serve a city the size of Seattle), navigation to deliver
agricultural products to market, recreation and the good-paying jobs
associated with these benefits. Writing in the August 25, 2003 edition
of The Dissident Voice, Ms. Wodder wrote that ``Breaching the four dams
on the lower Snake River would be the single most effective way to
bring back wild salmon.'' This is a completely unproven statement and
the reality is breaching these darns is an extreme action that would
have devastating economic impacts across an entire region while not
actually assisting fish recovery. Despite broad agreement, including
from the Obama Administration, on a biological opinion for Columbia
Basin salmon recovery, Ms. Wodder's organization continues an over
decade long lawsuit campaign against the federal government in an
effort to demolish these dams.
There are numerous examples of how the policies advocated by Ms.
Wodder at American Rivers will have serious impacts throughout the
country. First, she effectively advocated for federal regulations that
caused up to 40 percent unemployment in parts of the San Joaquin
Valley, California by diverting farm water under the guise of
protecting the Delta smelt, a three-inch fish. Second, she endorsed
last Congress' controversial legislation (H.R. 5088 and S. 787) that
many argued could allow the EPA to regulate street and gutter water
run-off and man-made ditches. This could cause significant job loss
throughout rural America and the National Association of Counties, a
non-partisan entity composed of locally elected officials, was
concerned that this legislation could lead to ``more court cases'' and
federal groundwater regulation. Third, by naming the Susquehanna River
as one of ``America's most endangered rivers,'' her organization
attempted to stifle the domestic production of affordable natural gas
through hydraulic fracturing.
Furthermore, we are also concerned that this appointment may run
afoul of President Obama's own goal of ensuring that political
appointees would not work on regulations or contracts directly and
substantially related to their prior employer. Ms. Wodder has received
significant, long-term compensation during her tenure at American
Rivers. As previously noted, the organization currently has numerous
pending lawsuits against the very agencies over which she would have
regulatory authority and for others that directly or indirectly have
been involved in litigation with the Interior Department. This creates
a very real and serious conflict of interest.
As Members of the House of Representatives, we appreciate the
unique role of the Senate in the confirmation process. Nonetheless, the
policies advocated by this nominee would be so detrimental to jobs, our
economy and the livelihood of rural Americans that we felt compelled to
make our views known and ask that you take them into consideration.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings, Member of Congress; Raul Labrador,
Member of Congress; Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
Member of Congress; Chip Cravaack, Member
of Congress; Dan Benishek, Member of
Congress; Glenn Thompson, Member of
Congress; Jeff Landry, Member of Congress;
John Fleming, Member of Congress; Blaine
Luetkemeyer, Member of Congress; Bob Gibbs,
Member of Congress; Denny Rehberg, Member
of Congress; Louie Gohmert, Member of
Congress; Sam Graves, Member of Congress;
Tom McClintock, Member of Congress; Devin
Nunes, Member of Congress; Doug Lamborn,
Member of Congress; Jeff Flake, Member of
Congress; Kristi Noem, Member of Congress;
Rob Bishop, Member of Congress; Jason
Chaffetz, Member of Congress; Don Young,
Member of Congress; Bill Johnson, Member of
Congress; Stevan Pearce, Member of
Congress; Scott Tipton, Member of Congress;
Ben Quayle, Member of Congress; Cynthia
Lummis, Member of Congress; Paul Gosar,
Member of Congress; Bill Flores, Member of
Congress; Mike Coffman, Member of Congress;
Cory Gardner, Member of Congress; Ken
Calvert, Member of Congress; Trent Franks,
Member of Congress; Wally Herger, Member of
Congress; Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Member
of Congress; Paul Broun, Member of
Congress; Vicky Hartzler, Member of
Congress; Jo Ann Emerson, Member of
Congress; Jeff Denham, Member of Congress;
Steve Southerland, II, Member of Congress.
______
July 25, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 703
Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I want to endorse the nomination of Rebecca Woddcr as Assistant
Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and National Parks. I have
known Rebecca Wodder since my time as Interior Secretary and find her
to be competent, fair and diligent. While I may have disagreed with
sonic policy positions she backed during her tenure at the helm of
American Rivers, I respect her desire to find solutions to difficult
problems. In tile West, dealing with water scarcity and water
allocation may be the most difficult problem of all. Wodder's work in
Washington State to help find consensus between conservation interests
and water users in the Yakima Basin has shown her to be talented
leader. The Interior Department will benefit from Rebecca Wodder's
experience bringing opposing interests together and forging important
compromises among difficult constituencies.
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus,
Governor of Idaho, 1971-1977, 1987-1995,
U.S. Secretary of the Interior, 1977-1981.
______
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.,
Madison, WI, July 17, 2011.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: Nomination of Rebecca Wodder to be Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks for the Department of the Interior
Dear Senators,
We are writing to convey our support for confirmation of Rebecca
Wodder to be Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the
Department of the Interior. ASFPM's 14,000 members are the federal
government's partners in efforts to identify and reduce the risk of
loss of life and property in floods. Ms. Wodder has demonstrated her
commitment to this effort, and will bring a diverse and valuable
background to her new role in the Department of the Interior. In
addition to her clear commitment to reducing the nation's vulnerability
to flooding, Ms. Wodder brings critical skills and expertise in the
natural resources and functions of floodplains. Importantly, her
background in public engagement and commitment to transparent and
inclusive public processes will also serve her well.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions about our support
for Ms. Wodder's confirmation, or any time we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Larry Larson, P.E., CFM.
______
Brookfield,
Marlborough, MA, July 21, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
In June, President Obama nominated Rebecca Wodder, former president
and chief executive officer of American Rivers, for the position of
Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the Department of
the Interior. This is a position for which Ms. Wodder will need
confirmation from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Brookfield supports Ms. Wodder's nomination.
Brookfield Renewable Power Inc., wholly-owned by Brookfield Asset
Management Inc., has more than 100 years of experience as an owner,
operator and developer of hydroelectric power facilities. Its total
portfolio includes more than 170 generating facilities with over 4,300
megawatts of capacity. It also has a significant hydroelectric and wind
project pipeline. Brookfield Renewable Power's operations are primarily
located in North America and Brazil. Brookfield Asset Management Inc.,
focused on property, power and infrastructure assets, has over US$150
billion of assets under management and is listed on the New York and
Toronto Stock Exchanges under the symbols BAM and BAM.A, respectively,
and on Euronext Amsterdam under the symbol BAMA. For more information,
please visit Brookfield Renewable Power's website at
www.brookfieldpower.com and Brookfield Asset Management's website at
www.brookfield.com.
Of Brookfield's 101 hydropower facilities in the United States, 42
are certified by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI). For more
information on LIHI's certification criteria, please visit
www.lowimpacthydro.org.
Through our work with LIHI, advocating for the use of LIHI
certification for hydropower's inclusion in state and national
renewable standards, multiple re-licensing efforts for our hydropower
facilities, and other projects where we have a shared interest,
Brookfield has developed a positive working relationship with American
Rivers under the leadership of Ms. Wodder. We have found American
Rivers to be a dedicated advocate for environmental issues but one that
is reasonable. While supporting its positions, American Rivers is
driven by scientific data and the common good which allows them the
flexibility to compromise when an agreement with multiple stakeholders
can be reached.
Brookfield supports the nomination of Ms. Wodder and encourages the
Committee to hold a hearing on her nomination as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Daniel Whyte,
Vice President.
______
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,
Arlington, VA, July 25, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators:
On behalf of America's electric cooperatives, I am writing today
opposing the nomination of Rebecca Wodder for Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
represents more than 900 not-for-profit electric cooperatives providing
retail electric service to more than 42 million consumers in 47 states.
Millions of electric cooperative consumers rely on the affordable,
renewable hydropower marketed by the federal Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs). The PMA hydropower projects serve multiple
purposes that help drive the economies of many states. As Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Ms. Wodder would have great
influence over the positions taken by the Department of the Interior,
which has broad jurisdiction over many areas impacting dam operations.
Because of the importance of the Power Marketing Administrations to
our economy, we are strongly opposed to the nomination of Ms. Wodder.
Since 1995, Ms. Wodder has served as President of American Rivers, an
organization that has made dam removal a central part of its mission.
During her tenure, she led efforts to remove the Lower Snake River
darns in the Pacific Northwest and opposed the Obama Administration's
Biological Opinion for salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake
Rivers. Given her long tenure at an organization with a strong bias for
dam removal, her objectivity on issues affecting federal hydropower
facilities is questionable.
NRECA has long opposed misguided efforts to dismantle our federal
hydropower resource. Unfortunately, Ms. Wodder has spent her
professional career attempting to eliminate this reliable, affordable,
renewable resource from our energy portfolio.
Accordingly, we urge you to oppose the nomination of Ms. Wodder for
Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Glenn English,
Chief Executive Officer.
______
The Heartland Institute,
Washington, DC, July 19, 2011.
Dear Member:
My name is Eli Lehrer and I am a Vice President of the Heartland
Institute for Washington, D.C. Operations. The Heartland Institute is a
national free-market think tank devoted to free markets, limited
government, and sensible regulatory policy. I am writing to you in
support of the nomination of Rebecca Wodder as the Assistant Secretary
of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Prior to assuming my current
position, I served as a speechwriter to Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist, a magazine editor at The American Enterprise Institute, and
fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The comments that follow are my
personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the opinions of The
Heartland Institute, its trustees, or its other staff members.
I first became familiar with Ms. Wodder's organization in the
context of the debate over The National Flood Insurance Program and
proposals to engineer a partial federal takeover of windstorm insurance
markets insurance. In the context of this debate, American Rivers
partnered with organizations including my own employer, Americans for
Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity to oppose proposals that would
expand the size and scope of government while damaging the natural
environment. At all times, I found American Rivers' staff willing to
work with right-of-center organizations like my own, open to new ideas,
and supportive of many free market values.
In the context of my knowledge of Ms. Wodder's organization, I
would also like to address the criticism that American Rivers has
received from some members of the Congress for its opposition to a
larger flood insurance program, more spending by Army Corps of
Engineers and its support for efforts to decommission environmentally
destructive, dangerous, poorly maintained dams. Although it is neither
possible nor desirable to remove all structural means of water control,
I see no reason why those who claim to favor smaller government should
support government spending on dubious ``economic development''
priorities that have the invariable side effect of damaging scenic
historic, and useful rivers. Certainly, reasonable people can differ on
the wisdom of removing any given dam or carrying out any major
hydrological project. But those who support smaller, less intrusive
government should cheer any organization calling for less government
spending and a smaller government footprint in the natural environment.
On the issue of water subsidies, I again see much that conservatives
should like in the positions that American Rivers has taken. Like Ms.
Wodder's group, I am opposed to government subsidies for the commercial
use of water for agricultural or other uses. Quite simply, Ms. Wodder's
views on a large number of issues are, in my judgment, exactly those
that conservatives concerned about our natural environment should
endorse.
I should also add that I am impressed with the way that American
Rivers, unlike some other environmental groups, has realized that
conservation of the natural environment is important insofar as it
benefits human beings. It is a mass membership organization with
enormous numbers outdoors enthusiasts amongst its membership and I
believe that, if confirmed to the position for which she was nominated,
she will work to make America's open spaces and scenic waterways
available and accessible to hunters, anglers, paddlers and other
outdoor recreation enthusiasts.
Let me close on a final note: like most conservatives, I have a
number of policy differences with Ms. Wodder. In particular, I strongly
disagree with positions she has expressed about the appropriate
response to climate change and with the climate-change related
legislation that American Rivers has supported. Her opinions, however,
are consistent with the opinions expressed by the President himself
and, to my knowledge, every other person he has appointed to a similar
position in his administration. While I disagree with them, I do not
believe they should disqualify her. In short, while my core beliefs are
different from Ms. Wodders' I believe that she deserves to be
confirmed.
Yours truly,
Eli Lehrer,
Vice President.