[Senate Hearing 116-379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 116-379

                   CLEMENTS AND CHRISTIE NOMINATIONS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   to

  CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF ALLISON CLEMENTS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
   FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND MARK C. CHRISTIE TO BE A 
           MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

                               __________


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
41-906                      WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                      Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                      Lucy Murfitt, Chief Counsel
               Patrick J. McCormick III, Special Counsel
                Jake McCurdy, Professional Staff Member
                 Renae Black, Democratic Staff Director
                Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                     Darla Ripchensky, Chief Clerk
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  West Virginia..................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Christie, Hon. Mark C., nominated to be a Member of the Federal 
  Energy Regulatory Commission...................................     5
Clements, Allison, nominated to be a Member of the Federal Energy 
  Regulatory Commission..........................................     9

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Appalachian Trail Conservancy:
    Letter for the Record........................................    91
Christie, Hon. Mark C.:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     7
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    42
Clements, Allison:
    Opening Statement............................................     9
    Written Testimony............................................    11
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    62
    Responses to Supplemental Questions for the Record...........    90
Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
    Letter for the Record regarding Mark Christie................    98
    Letter for the Record regarding Allison Clements.............    99
Kelly, Suedeen G.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   100
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
Mroz, Richard:
    Letter for the Record........................................   101
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
National Association of Manufacturers:
    Letter for the Record........................................   102

 
                   CLEMENTS AND CHRISTIE NOMINATIONS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020

                                       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. Lisa 
Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will 
come to order. We are here today to consider the nominations of 
Judge Mark Christie and Ms. Allison Clements to be members of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). I want to 
welcome both nominees to the Committee this morning. I 
appreciate you both being here in person, and I truly 
appreciate your willingness to serve our country on such a 
consequential Commission.
    I also want to express my appreciation that we are here at 
all today with, again, a set of bipartisan nominees before us. 
Back in 2016 as I was ending my first term as Chairman of this 
Committee, I was not able to hold this same type of a hearing 
despite having an open Republican seat and then two open 
Republican seats by roughly the same point in that year. The 
previous Administration chose not to send us any nominations, 
and I can assure those who are listening that it was not for 
lack of qualified or confirmable candidates. No time to go 
further into the reasons why or shedding any light on that but, 
whatever it was, we started 2017 with a three-member 
Commission. We quickly lost one member to resignation and then 
we had to wait months before we could restore a working quorum. 
In the meantime, the FERC was in a situation where they were 
simply not able to do their job--a job that is important and 
critical to all Americans.
    So hearings like this are a good opportunity to reiterate 
that decisions that the FERC Commissioners make do matter. They 
matter not only to the energy sector but to the nation as a 
whole. I would point people to the Commission's website. The 
Commission lists a baker's dozen of its duties, and to 
highlight just six jobs that help determine energy security in 
the real world, FERC: approves the siting of interstate 
national gas pipelines; regulates transmission and wholesale 
sales of electricity; licenses and inspects hydro projects; 
regulates the transmission and sale of natural gas for resale; 
monitors and investigates energy markets; and protects the 
reliability of high voltage interstate transmission systems. 
That is less than half of its jobs.
    Several years ago, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, 
estimated FERC's economic reach at roughly three percent of 
GDP, but the Commission's real impact is likely greater because 
energy is a fundamental input. Given FERC's many powers, every 
hearing on the nomination of a FERC Commissioner is critical. 
Today we are able to consider nominees for two of FERC's five 
seats, so we have a pair before us--one nominee from the 
President's party and one from the other party. Although pairs 
are not the historical norm, I do appreciate the President's 
willingness to nominate individuals to fill both open seats at 
the Commission. I also appreciate that the two candidates 
before us today are clearly experts in their field. I have 
often said that my distinct preference is for FERC to have a 
full complement of five Commissioners.
    Again, the job is considerable. Look at the situation in 
California with the electric reliability risks that I have 
warned about for years now. Our reality is that we need our 
FERC to take on the heavy tasks in front of them. We currently 
have three confirmed members serving on FERC. I am hoping the 
nominees before us today will show that they merit confirmation 
and allow us to restore five members at the Commission before 
the end of this Congress.
    Our first nominee, Mark Christie, is the Chairman of the 
State Corporation Commission of Virginia. Judge Christie has 
been elected by the Virginia Legislature on a bipartisan basis 
three separate times since 2004. He is one of the nation's 
longest serving state regulators.
    Our second nominee, Allison Clements, led the Sustainable 
FERC Project for more than half of her eight years serving as a 
lawyer for the National Resources Defense Council. More 
recently, Ms. Clements founded goodgrid LLC--an energy policy 
and strategy consulting firm. She spent two years as Director 
of the Energy Markets Program at the Energy Foundation.
    I view these as consequential nominations because FERC, 
again, is at the center of the energy transition that we are 
witnessing today. In addition to grappling with a large case 
docket and its reliability mission, FERC is examining issues 
such as incentives for cybersecurity investments and potential 
mechanisms for pricing carbon and wholesale electricity 
markets. If confirmed, these nominees will serve over the next 
several critical years. While I am hopeful that a full slate of 
Commissioners will be able to deliberate and resolve complex, 
challenging issues to enable a more reliable, resilient, 
affordable, and clean energy sector throughout that period, I 
also want to make sure that we choose the right people for this 
very important role.
    As with all of our nomination hearings, we will allow 
members to ask their questions of both nominees today. You will 
note that we are, once again, operating in a hybrid manner. We 
will have some members who will come to the Committee in 
person, others virtually. I will be here as long as I can to 
facilitate that. I will acknowledge that we have a series of 
votes beginning at 11:30, but we can work through that.
    Recognizing that we also have a subcommittee hearing this 
afternoon, questions for the record will be due at the close of 
business tomorrow.
    Senator Manchin, I will now turn to you for your opening 
remarks, then we will swear in the witnesses and allow them to 
introduce any family members who may be here in person or 
watching virtually.
    Before I turn to you though, Senator Manchin, I want to 
welcome back to the Committee Pat McCormick, who has been with 
the Committee for many years. Pat took a brief detour and is 
now back with us. This is his first hearing and, given his 
expertise out in the private sector and what he has been 
working on here in the Committee, it is very opportune that we 
have this FERC confirmation hearing before us. So I welcome Pat 
back.
    With that, I turn to you, Senator Manchin, for your 
comments.

              STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Manchin. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, for 
convening today's hearing on the nominations of Ms. Clements 
and Judge Christie to be members of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission. I want to thank both of our nominees for 
being here with us this morning and being willing to serve. 
Given today's toxic atmosphere, it is sometimes hard to get the 
best, but we did get the best in you two.
    I am very pleased to have both of you, a Democrat and a 
Republican, before the Committee. That is the way it really 
should be to get a five-member Commission back. First, because 
I think it is critical that we fill these two vacancies in the 
Commission and return it to a fully seated FERC. And second, 
because I think both of these nominees, and I have told you 
this before, are most qualified and will do a great job. The 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is meant to be a five-
member Commission. It has been for the last ninety years. This 
is because Congress has always recognized that the important 
issues of hydro-electric development, reliability of the 
nation's electric grid, natural gas pipeline construction, and 
wholesale gas and electric rates are best left to an 
independent, non-partisan body of experts who can determine 
policy through discussion and deliberation. Even in 1977 when 
Congress established the Department of Energy and put most 
energy functions in the hands of the Secretary of Energy, it 
wisely insisted that the regulatory and ratemaking authorities 
of the former Federal Power Commission remain in the hands of a 
five-member Commission. Collectively, five Commissioners will 
always bring to the table more wisdom, more knowledge, more 
life experience and more diverse views than the wisest, most 
knowledgeable, most experienced energy czar we could ever find.
    FERC functions best when it has a full complement of five 
members. We have seen what happens when the Commission can't 
act because it doesn't have a quorum. With Commissioner 
McNamee's departure two weeks ago, the Commission is now down 
to a bare minimum of three members. I hope that following our 
hearing today we can act quickly to get both of these nominees 
confirmed quickly.
    When Congress established FERC in 1977, it was very clear 
on the sort of person it wanted on the Commission. It wrote 
into the statute that Commissioners were to be individuals who 
by demonstrated ability, background, training, or experience 
are specially qualified to assess fairly the needs and concerns 
of all interests affected by federal energy policy. I think the 
two nominees before us clearly meet that test.
    Ms. Clements has spent her entire professional career 
working on energy issues, first as an associate in a law firm 
representing utilities and independent power producers like 
Southern Company and Dominion, then as the head of the 
Sustainable FERC Projects at the Natural Resources Defense 
Council. She then founded and served as President of a 
consulting firm focused on energy policy before joining the 
Energy Foundation as the Director of Clean Energy Markets and 
most recently transitioning to a consulting role. This is not 
her first time before the panel. She testified before us in 
2018 in a hearing examining the performance of the electric 
power system during winter weather events. Her knowledge and 
commitment to pragmatic bipartisan and consensus solutions is 
demonstrated by her service as a member of a National Academy 
of Sciences committee that produced a report on enhancing the 
resilience of the nation's electrical system. Similarly, Ms. 
Clements co-chaired a broad stakeholder group to identify 
policies to support a modern and reliable U.S. electric grid 
published by the Bipartisan Policy Center. In sum, she has 
represented utilities, independent power producers, developers, 
lenders, non-profits, and philanthropies. As President Trump 
noted when he announced his intent to nominate Ms. Clements, 
``she will bring the Commission over two decades of experience 
dealing with federal energy regulatory policy, energy markets 
and electric grid issues.''
    Judge Christie has been a member of the Virginia State 
Corporation Commission for the past 16 years. He has been 
elected to that important post, three times, by bipartisan 
votes of both Houses of the Virginia General Assembly. He is 
also a native West Virginian from Bluefield, West Virginia, and 
served our country in the United States Marine Corps, which 
makes him very qualified. Judge Christie will bring to FERC the 
important perspective of the state utility regulator which it 
has lacked since Robert Powelson stepped down two years ago.
    I am pleased that the President has kept with longstanding 
tradition and sent us a balanced, bipartisan pairing. I was 
highly impressed by both of these well-qualified nominees and 
our conversations ahead of this hearing, and I look forward to 
our questions and answers. Thank you both, again, for being 
with us here today to continue the conversation. I look forward 
to meeting your families also.
    Thank you, Chairman Murkowski.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
    At this time the rules of the Committee which apply to all 
nominees require that they be sworn in in connection with their 
testimony. I ask that you both rise and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
    [Both witnesses answer, yes.]
    You may both be seated.
    Before you begin your statements, I will ask you three 
questions. I have asked these to each nominee who appears 
before the Committee.
    First, 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?
    Mr. Christie. Yes.
    Ms. Clements. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings, 
investments or interests that could constitute a conflict or 
create an appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed 
and assume the office to which you have been nominated by the 
President?
    Mr. Christie. No.
    Ms. Clements. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings 
and other interests have been reviewed by both myself and 
appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government, 
and I received a guidance letter based on that review. I have 
taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. 
Incorporating the guidance in that letter, there are no 
conflicts of interest or appearances thereof, to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Are you involved or do you have any assets 
held in blind trust?
    Mr. Christie. No.
    Ms. Clements. No.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    With that, Judge Christie, you may proceed with any 
introductory remarks you may want to provide the Committee, 
introduce any family members, but the floor is yours and then 
we will proceed to Ms. Clements.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK C. CHRISTIE, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF 
            THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Christie. Okay, well, good morning and thank you, Chair 
Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin, other members of the 
Committee, Senator Heinrich, here today. Thank you for this 
opportunity to be considered for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. It is an honor to be here. I also want to thank the 
President of the United States for providing me this 
opportunity to continue serving the public on a national level 
as I have done for many years at the state level.
    Thanking the many people who have helped me reach this 
point would take far too much time, but I want to thank some 
very important ones. And first, I want to thank my wife, Anita, 
who is here with me. Anita is my best friend and life partner 
in all ways. Next, I want to thank my fellow Commissioners on 
the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) and all the 
staff of the Virginia SCC who have served with me since I 
joined in 2004. When my nomination was announced, I said to our 
staff that I did not regard this nomination as a personal 
recognition, but rather, a recognition of the national stature 
and national respect earned by the Virginia State Corporation 
Commission over its many years of defending the public 
interest. Lastly, I want to thank my fellow state commissioners 
around the country with whom I have interacted through 
organizations such as NARUC and the organization of PJM states. 
From my peer regulators I have learned that among the states 
there are many commonalities, but also, that each state is 
unique and has different needs and approaches. I have always 
agreed with Justice Brandeis who said that, ``States are the 
laboratories of democracy and should be respected as such.''
    For more than 16 years I have served as a state utilities 
regulator. That record is public, and I am proud of it. In 
Virginia our legislature elects members of our commission, and 
I've been honored to be elected three times, each time on a 
bipartisan basis. The Virginia SCC is an independent, non-
partisan commission, so I know from experience how important 
independence is to making good decisions in the public 
interest. FERC is also independent. And if you honor me with 
confirmation, I will absolutely respect and defend that 
independence at the federal level as I have done at the state 
level.
    Finally, I would like to describe briefly what I believe 
are the major roles of a regulatory agency based on my 
experience, both as a practitioner and as a teacher of 
regulation. An agency such as FERC has three essential roles, 
as I see it. First is what I would call the statutory role and 
that is to follow the law in each and every case. FERC has only 
the authority that has been delegated to it by you, the 
Congress. Statutes often contain language that is sometimes 
very specific and at other times much broader. So where the law 
does give discretion, my belief is that an agency should be 
deeply sensitive to the impacts of its decisions on consumers. 
As a state regulator I'm intensely aware that while FERC does 
not regulate retail rates, what FERC does affects retail rates 
and with millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, 
FERC should always be sensitive to cost to consumers as it 
fulfills its duties. The second role of a regulatory agency is 
to inform and advise. FERC has a tremendous amount of special 
expertise that can inform and advise legislators and 
policymakers about policy choices when asked. The third role of 
a regulatory agency is a duty to inform the public of the true 
costs and benefits of public policies. The public has a right 
to know the realistic costs that it will be forced to pay and 
the realistic benefits that it can expect of policies within 
that area, that agency's area of expertise.
    Again, thank you for this honor, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Christie follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Judge Christie, thank you, and we welcome you 
to the Committee, Anita, as well.
    At this time, we will turn to Allison Clements. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF ALLISON CLEMENTS, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
              FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and 
members of the Committee. I am honored to appear this morning 
as a nominee to serve on the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
    I will start with thanks to Minority Leader Schumer and his 
staff for recommending me for this nomination. Thank you also 
to President Trump for giving me the nomination and this 
opportunity, and thank you to Senator Manchin and his staff for 
supporting me throughout the nomination process thus far.
    All things are different in light of the Coronavirus 
pandemic, including our ability to share these important 
moments with family and friends. So I thank my husband, Ray, 
who is here with me today and our daughters, Amelia and Claire, 
who are watching from home. Their support in this process makes 
it possible and worthwhile. I'd also like to recognize and 
thank my parents, Bob and Jean Clements, who are watching from 
Dayton, Ohio, and my siblings, David, Andrea and Janet and 
their families. In addition to providing unwavering support, 
during their 56-year marriage, my parents have demonstrated the 
value of hard work and dedication: My father, by climbing the 
ranks of General Motors over his 30-year career there and my 
mother as a teacher, stay-at-home mom, and then Master's Degree 
graduate which led to her tenured role as a Greene County 
Extension Agent for Ohio State University. Finally, I'd like to 
thank my mother-in-law, Peggy Henger, Ana and Jorge Vidal, and 
colleagues and good friends in Washington, Salt Lake City, and 
beyond, who have supported my family and me through this 
journey.
    Some people have asked me why in such partisan and divided 
times I would want to take on this role. Thinking of my 
daughters at home, getting ready for their virtual classes 
today, my answer is easy, I firmly believe in public service as 
a high calling and I'm honored for the opportunity to serve our 
great country. I have tremendous respect for FERC and its role 
as an independent bipartisan Commission. I've developed this 
perspective across different roles throughout my career in the 
energy sector. Each of these experiences has shaped the 
approach I would take if having the honor of confirmed as a 
Commissioner.
    First, representing utilities at a law firm opened my eyes 
to the magnitude of administrative compliance that is complying 
with the U.S. regulatory energy landscape maze. The role also 
provided me with my first encounter with the lesson affirmed 
over and over throughout my career: precision and integrity are 
critical for success in the practice of law.
    Second, as an attorney representing borrowers and lenders 
to infrastructure project financings, I became attuned to the 
powerful impact that one policy change can have on a deal worth 
hundreds of millions of dollars as well as the related high bar 
for regulatory certainty that capital markets expect as a 
precursor to investment. I learned to appreciate the intention, 
and attention, that should support any regulatory change as the 
impacts can be far-reaching.
    Third, I'm better known for my time representing clean 
energy interests, a time during which I learned many things, 
the role deepened my expertise in electric grid operations by 
providing opportunities to serve as co-chair of a Bipartisan 
Policy Center committee on grid modernization and grid policy 
as well as on a National Academy of Sciences committee focused 
on grid resilience. There, I had the honor of working with some 
of the country's most eminent grid-focused engineers on how to 
ensure system resilience and reliability. This role also taught 
me to appreciate the boundaries of FERC's jurisdiction as an 
economic, technology neutral and reliability regulator.
    Finally, this work made clear that FERC regulation does not 
exist in a vacuum. Individuals and communities, and in the end 
all of us as consumers, are affected by FERC's decisions. While 
the issues are sometimes technical and arcane, we must not 
forget that ultimately the Commission exists to serve the 
public interest.
    If I have the honor of being confirmed, I will also bring 
the professional values I have employed and honed across all of 
these experiences. These values include a commitment to keep an 
open mind and to learn from and work with FERC's impressive 
staff, my fellow Commissioners, and sector stakeholders on the 
important issues facing the Commission today.
    I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the 
Committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Clements follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Clements. We appreciate that, 
and we welcome you to the Committee, and your husband Ray, and 
for acknowledging the family and the supports that allow both 
of you to be before us today for consideration.
    I am going to begin this first round of questions with 
questions that will be directed to both of you. They are pretty 
general, but I think that they go so much to the heart of the 
FERC. And Judge Christie, you used the words very clearly, that 
FERC is an independent agency. I think we all acknowledge that. 
We acknowledge that FERC must function as an impartial, 
economic regulator, not as an agency responsible for 
implementing the administration's policy decisions. So both of 
you have been involved in other matters prior to this, what 
assurances can you give the Committee that you will be 
independent, impartial as regulators and can you provide some 
specific examples where you have shown just that? We recognize 
that personal philosophy or opinions regarding energy policy 
influence your actions. We understand that, but what I would 
like to hear, and I think what is important for other members 
of the Committee, is to note your assurances on independence 
and impartiality in this important regulatory agency.
    Judge Christie, we will begin with you, and then we will 
turn to Ms. Clements.
    Mr. Christie. Well, thank you, Chairman, for that question. 
Independence is extremely important. The example I would offer 
is I spent 16 years on an independent commission. The Virginia 
State Corporation Commission is actually instituted by the 
Constitution of Virginia, and it is both statutorily, 
constitutionally, and by culture of Virginia, independent. And 
so, for 16 years I've made independent decisions based on the 
law and the facts and without political influence. One of the 
great things about the Virginia State Corporation Commission, 
it is, it's non-partisan and so the decisions are made based on 
law and facts, and I've had a 16-year record of doing that.
    So, I can assure you that FERC is also independent and I 
believe very strongly in independence, and I think decisions 
ought to be made based on the law and the facts and not 
without, not with political influence.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Chairman, and I would suggest that 
your leadership of this Committee is a great example for a way 
to demonstrate bipartisanship and collaboration and so, I 
appreciate that.
    The role of the Commission is as an economic independent 
regulator, pursuant to the Federal Power Act and the Natural 
Gas Act which provides authority for the Commission to act at 
all. I have had the honor of engaging with many FERC 
Commissioners over the last 20 years, who have been models of 
that independence and I would commit to following in their 
footsteps. I think my time representing varied interests brings 
a set of perspectives that allows me to understand where people 
are coming from. And so, when I go to the statutes that empower 
the Commission to act, I can take that law and apply it to the 
facts, in each case, and they will always be different and 
specific, to the best of my ability.
    The Chairman. So, again, to both of you, I have mentioned 
that you are both considered energy experts. You have 
significant background here. This necessarily means that you or 
institutions that you have represented have litigated before or 
even against the FERC which brings up the matter of recusal and 
we recognize that you have both executed ethics agreements, 
perhaps haven't had an in-depth review with FERC's designated 
agency office, ethics officer, but what I would ask is 
assurance from both of you that you will recuse yourself as 
necessary from cases in which you were involved in your prior 
roles and then beyond that, following the guidance of FERC's 
DAEO, what will your approach to recusals be? Is there any 
specific matter that you have already identified that will 
require your recusal?
    Again, Judge Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Yes, thank you, Chairman.
    I've gone through the process with the Office of Government 
Ethics and also with the FERC DAEO, and I can pledge yes to 
your Committee policy. I know that was attached to the 
questionnaire. You asked us to affirmatively sign a pledge 
following the ethics policy at FERC, and I can certainly pledge 
to do that. And I understand when you, if we get honored with 
being confirmed, that one of the first things we do is we sit 
down for a more extensive review with the FERC designated 
ethics office/officer and I can pledge to you to work with that 
DAEO anytime the issue of recusal might come up and to follow 
the guidance that I receive.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Judge.
    Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you. I take the ethic obligation, 
ethical obligations to which I would be subject as a FERC 
Commissioner, if confirmed, very seriously as part of integrity 
in the commitment of the role. I, too, have met with the 
Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) and if confirmed would 
be subject to not only the guidance that's been provided by the 
DAEO in coordination with the Office of Government Ethics, but 
also to this Committee's ethics responsibility as well as the 
President's pledge, and certainly I would also make one of my 
first stops at the Commission to the Office of General Counsel 
to figure out the immediate next steps on that front.
    The Chairman. Thank you, both.
    Senator Manchin.
    Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you both, 
again, and your families for the support they give you to do 
the job for the people and I appreciate that. Let me just say a 
word about these extreme weather conditions that we are having 
and the challenge of ensuring the reliability of the power grid 
that is demanded and people need. My youngest daughter just 
moved to Houston, Texas, with her husband because of his job 
relocation. I spent a little bit of time there as the last 
hurricane came up through Lake Charles, Louisiana, and they 
were affected. It was a beautiful day; six hours with no power. 
They had no idea, no explanation. We called this and that. And 
we watch what is happening in Florida and in California. So the 
reliability of the grid, and I have always said, people want 
reliable, dependable, and affordable energy and they have been 
receiving that for quite some time, but now, it is a little bit 
sparse and they are concerned.
    So I would ask both of you, on the reliability of the grid 
system, is that based on cost or based on the energy that we 
are able to supply to make sure that the people have dependable 
power--how do you all look at that from the FERC's evaluation?
    Judge Christie, you might want to start.
    Mr. Christie. Thank you, Senator, and that is a huge 
issue--reliability. Americans expect electric power on a 24/7/
365 basis. They don't want hours or days where there's no 
power. So that's what Americans expect. It's essential to 
modern life. As a regulator, you're very sensitive to that and 
so reliability is one of your most important duties, and 
reliability in America is both, largely at the state level 
because it is the states that approve generating plants. FERC's 
role, of course, is to regulate the RTOs and for those states 
that are in RTOs FERC has a very large role in ensuring that 
those RTOs are doing their job to make sure that the 
transmission planning and the generating planning is being done 
properly and making sure that that reliability is a 24/7/365 
deliverable and, in fact, does happen.
    Senator Manchin. Allison?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Manchin, and thanks again 
for the chance to be here today.
    I think the reliability authority that FERC has under 
Section 215 of the Federal Power Act is obviously critical and 
whether or not the risk to reliability comes from the kind of 
weather events that you're describing or from the risk of a 
cyberattack, which I know this Committee has spent a lot of 
time focusing on, that risk is real and important. I spent a 
year on a National Academy of Sciences committee thinking about 
how to ensure resilience of the system in those types of events 
and there's always a tradeoff. There's a tradeoff, as Chairman 
Christie has mentioned, between cost and reliability benefits. 
And so, the question is in order to ensure that FERC is meeting 
its obligations and protecting U.S. citizens going forward, 
what are the right, most efficient, effective investments that 
the system needs to make on a going forward basis to protect 
customers to provide that reliable, affordable power?
    Senator Manchin. Energy markets are changing, as you know, 
and electric demand and everyone is taking a side. Is it going 
to be renewables or is it going to be fossil or a mix of all-
of-the-above? Do you pick winners and losers in the energy mix? 
I don't think that is FERC's responsibility. FERC's 
responsibility is ensuring dependable, reliable and affordable 
power. But on that, right now we are having a hard time siting 
pipelines. West Virginia has an ocean of energy underneath our 
feet as far as the Marcellus/Utica shale and now that 
Rogersville is coming on, but we can't seem to get it out 
because the Atlantic Coast pipeline has been shut down, as you 
know, and the people in the South are demanding it. They need 
it in South Carolina, especially.
    So my question would be to both of you, FERC plays an 
important permitting role. Without asking you to discuss any 
project that might come before you, I would like to hear both 
of your views on pipelines and permitting of pipelines, and on 
the necessity and need for pipelines. Because of energy 
demands, if they don't get pipelines, no alternative energy is 
going to be dependable.
    So whoever wants to comment on that.
    Mr. Christie. I'll let you go first.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you.
    Mr. Christie. Likewise.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator.
    Absolutely, the Commission's role is not to pick winners 
and losers when it comes to fuel choices. The Commission's role 
is to ensure just and reasonable rates and to protect 
reliability in light of the resource mix and as it evolves over 
time. I think under--you raise the issue of gas infrastructure 
and gas is a critical component of today's diverse electricity 
system. It made up 38 percent of generation across the country 
in 2019. When it comes to approving natural gas pipelines, the 
Commission's responsibility comes under next, excuse me, 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and under that section the 
Commission must consider whether or not a proposed pipeline is 
necessary for the present or future public convenience and 
necessity. Each time there is an application for a pipeline, 
there is a complex record of facts, both from the applicant's 
perspective and from the perspective of landowners who might be 
implicated by that pipeline. If confirmed, I would commit to 
going into each of those proceedings with an open mind and 
reviewing the specific facts of that case to apply Section 7 in 
each instance.
    Mr. Christie. Yeah, and thank you, Senator, for that 
question.
    I agree with Allison, in an infrastructure case you have to 
first look at the need. That's the most important thing. I've 
sat on a lot of infrastructure cases in my 16 years. I've sat 
on transmission line cases. I've sat on generating plant cases. 
I've sat on some pipeline cases that were intrastate to 
Virginia. FERC, of course, does the interstate pipelines. And 
the most important thing when you approach an infrastructure 
case is first and foremost you look at the record and the facts 
are different in each case. So you have to pay careful 
attention to the record because if eminent domain is going to 
be used, that's going to take somebody's property and you have 
to be very sensitive to that. So need has to be proven by the 
facts.
    And then, of course, you apply the law to the facts. And 
just like Allison just said, once you get, if we're honored to 
get to FERC, I would approach every case in the same way she 
indicated which is you sit down with an application, each 
application has a very detailed, factual record. Need has to be 
proven. And then you, of course, want to make sure that the 
cost is reasonable because, again, we have to be very sensitive 
to what it's going to cost, but also being sensitive to the 
fact that eminent domain is going to be used in these cases. So 
I can pledge to you, based on a record of doing so for 16 
years, that I approach every infrastructure case based on that 
record, applying the law to that record and then coming to a 
fair and unbiased decision.
    Senator Manchin. Thank you, both.
    Madam Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Hello to you both. Thank you for offering 
yourselves for service. Ms. Clements, I am from Louisiana. I 
want to say, Clemont, but Ms. Clements, I agree with your 
attitude regarding public service. So thank you both for your 
public service.
    My staff tells me that FERC will be convening a technical 
conference later this month on carbon pricing and organized 
wholesale electricity markets. Among the topics to be discussed 
will be the Commission's statutory authority to implement 
carbon pricing in the RTO/ISO markets. A question to you both, 
what do you believe is FERC's role in implementing a carbon 
tax?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Cassidy, and I'll just 
take a moment to recognize the leadership that you're 
demonstrating as your citizens in Louisiana are still reeling 
from the last hurricane that happened there.
    Several stakeholders across the energy sector have proposed 
a price on carbon, or a carbon tax, as an efficient means to 
address and put value on carbon-free power production. I think 
the role of FERC, the question that you ask, in that case is to 
provide an open forum on this emerging issue to allow 
stakeholders to be heard, the economists and the legal experts, 
about whether or not FERC has a role to play on that front. I 
certainly commend Chairman Chatterjee for his decision to hold 
a technical conference at the end of this month. And because 
that technical conference is on the calendar, I don't want to 
risk prejudging anything that might be said there or any 
comments that might be provided in writing on the record 
following that conference. So, if confirmed, I would certainly 
commit to reviewing in detail the record that comes forward 
there and to understand the perspectives that the various 
stakeholders have on both the legal jurisdiction and the 
economic efficiency.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Thank you, Senator Cassidy, for the question.
    I'm aware that FERC is going to have a technical conference 
to air out those issues. The question about whether FERC has 
the legal authority to order a carbon price or a carbon tax in 
RTOs is a legal question that I certainly haven't come to a 
conclusion on, and I think it's an open question. That's why 
they're having the technical conference. So what I can pledge 
to you is, if I'm honored to get to FERC, if a question such as 
that arises, I approach it with an open mind. And it's really a 
question of legal analysis and coming to a conclusion on what 
the law allows FERC to do. I don't have any prejudged opinion 
on that as to the specific issue of the carbon price.
    Senator Cassidy. Ms. Clements, thank you for your sympathy 
for my fate, I appreciate it. We are still recovering, so thank 
you for that.
    I may just not have heard your answer correctly, but in 
your answer to Senator Manchin regarding FERC favoring one 
source of energy over another I think you said, particularly as 
regards pipelines, so let me ask you this. In 2014, you wrote 
that, and I am quoting, ``FERC can't pick winners or losers. 
FERC's authority under the Federal Power Act is not allowed to 
prefer any one type of power resource over another. In fact, 
the law requires just the opposite. FERC's job is to level the 
playing field so that all types of generating resources can 
duke it out in the marketplace.'' And so, kind of, you were 
positing a question that appeared--and then you were, kind of, 
disagreeing with the question you posited but that also seems a 
little incompatible with your answer with Senator Manchin 
unless I didn't hear correctly. So I would just like to ask you 
to clarify.
    Ms. Clements. Sure, Senator, thank you for the question.
    Absolutely, it is the Commission's job under the Federal 
Power Act to ensure just and reasonable rates and avoid undue 
discrimination. That means that the Commission does not have 
the authority to prefer any type of resource, any type of fuel 
source when it comes to the question of ensuring just and 
reasonable rates.
    Senator Cassidy. Okay, now that is, it seems that it is a 
very specific answer as regards just and reasonable rates. 
Would there be another reason for the Commission to favor one 
resource over another?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator.
    Former Commissioner Phil Moeller once said the Commission 
has to be technology neutral but it cannot be reliability 
neutral. And so under the Commission's Section 215 authority 
for ensuring the grid's reliability, I think the important 
question for the Commission to ask and it does have an open 
docket on resilience going on and so, I wouldn't want to 
prejudge anything there. The important question for the 
Commission to ask is does the grid have the right services to 
provide reliability along with the electrons that flow across 
transmission lines? And in that case, there might be individual 
characteristics of different kinds of resources that bring 
benefits to the system. It's FERC's job both to ensure that we 
have the right set of reliability services for the grid as well 
as to allow resources to compete to provide them on a non-
discriminatory basis.
    Senator Cassidy. Okay, thank you both, again, for offering 
yourselves for service. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Wyden.
    Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and Madam 
Chair, thank you very much for that gracious text you sent me 
over the weekend about our fires. I would like to make an 
appeal, Madam Chair. Before I ask my questions with respect to 
the nominees, could I take, perhaps, three minutes to just 
touch on this forestry question and make an appeal to the 
Committee? I can do it in three minutes.
    The Chairman. Go ahead, Senator. We recognize that this is 
a pretty extraordinary time in your state and in several of the 
others.
    Senator Wyden. I think it is an extraordinary time for our 
country and our Committee. I saw neighborhoods that were 
reduced to ash this weekend. The streets had cars that were 
melted. You can only imagine how hot it gets to melt a car. I 
think, Madam Chair, this is a watershed moment for our 
Committee as well with respect to forest policy. We have done 
some very good work, and you and I have worked together in the 
past. Particularly, we ended this ridiculous practice of fire 
borrowing that discriminated against prevention. There were 
other good changes in the Farm bill.
    But the fact is that forestry policy in the Congress has 
not been quick enough. It has not been nimble enough to deal 
with these incredibly fast-moving fires. I mean, they just 
rampage through the West, and I would just make an appeal to my 
colleagues in this special request I made to say that we have 
been at these decisions for a long time. We know the facts, we 
know the issues, and what we have to do is find a way, like we 
did with fire borrowing, to work in a bipartisan way, make sure 
that we don't let these third rails of fire policy get in the 
way and make some big decisions now that are going to meet the 
needs of our people. This Committee is the leading Committee 
with respect to fire. I will be reaching out to all of you here 
quickly. Senator Manchin and I already have a bill reflecting 
some of the most important new science, but I think we have 
some heavy lifting to do, colleagues. This is a watershed 
moment for our Committee and our country in terms of fire 
policy, and we are going to have to go with good science and go 
with it quickly.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I will begin my five minutes.
    The Chairman. Senator, if I can just interrupt----
    Senator Wyden. Please.
    The Chairman. ----on that and just thank you for your 
comments. I think we do recognize that when it comes to 
wildfires and the impact, particularly in the West right now, 
but it is a threat throughout the country. We do have more work 
to do as a Committee. We recognize that we have made some 
significant progress. I look at my friend and colleague from 
Washington there. We have made advancements and certainly what 
we have been working on with the fire borrowing policy has made 
a difference from a resource allocation perspective, but we 
know we have more to do. We have a subcommittee hearing on 
public lands that Senator Lee is going to be chairing this 
afternoon that will have a bipartisan measure, but I think 
there is plenty of room to be doing more, so we look forward to 
engaging individually and as a Committee on these matters.
    If you now wish to proceed with your questions to our 
nominees please do so, but thank you for that.
    Senator Wyden. Thank you, and I appreciated the 
consideration over the weekend, Madam Chair, and you are 
absolutely right, we can do this in the tradition that the 
Committee has worked in the past.
    Question for you, Ms. Clements. We have been dealing with 
Jordan Cove and it has been before FERC for quite some time. 
There is enormous opposition in my home state to eminent domain 
and particularly threatening people's property without due 
process. Right now, we don't allow eminent domain to export 
other commodities. Now I am just asking you from a policy 
standpoint, do you think the government should allow eminent 
domain when you are talking about the export of natural gas?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for the question 
and I, too, think of the people in your state. It's hard to 
fathom from where we sit here in Washington, DC, all that you 
all and people across the West are experiencing right now.
    When it comes to Jordan Cove and the export of liquified 
natural gas, it's important to think about what the 
Commission's role is in that process. Congress has determined 
that the U.S. Department of Energy should be the agency that 
determines whether or not there is a benefit to actually 
exporting the gas itself, whether or not that is in the public 
interest. The Commission's role under Section 3 of the Natural 
Gas Act is then to approve simply the facility for the export 
if the facts merit that approval because the facility is not 
contrary to the public interest. On the pipeline question 
itself, when the pipeline is deemed to be under Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act then eminent domain rights attach. 
Obviously, as Chairman Christie mentioned earlier, eminent 
domain is a real, a really big deal with real life impacts for 
property owners who are implicated. And so, if confirmed to the 
Commission, I would never go into any Section 7 proceeding 
lightly, but look very specifically at the facts of the case 
and the potential impacts.
    Senator Wyden. Let me ask you a question with respect to 
climate science and your responsibilities at FERC. And you 
know, part of the reason I made that comment earlier and I was 
appreciative of Chair Murkowski for being able to do it, is 
that clearly, we have to let science drive so many of these 
major decisions. I happen to believe that good forest science 
is good climate science, and I think as we look at these 
issues, part of the task for all nominees in resource agencies 
is to look at how they can affect climate policy in the most 
constructive way.
    In your view, and you and I talked about this, how can FERC 
best utilize climate science when deciding whether pipelines 
and natural gas plants are in the public's interest?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I think science and 
all facts should drive the Commission's application of the law 
in all circumstances, and I would certainly commit to that 
approach if confirmed. When it comes to how climate science 
interacts with the Commission's authority, as you know, the 
Commission is not a direct climate regulator, but one place 
where the science will be very important is thinking about the 
Commission's reliability responsibility under Section 215. It's 
incumbent upon the Commission to ensure that the system has the 
supply it needs to meet demand as well as the ongoing 
reliability, operating reliability of the system, in light of 
the best predictions and the best analysis about what the 
future weather patterns, what type of extreme weather events 
and natural disasters the country might be facing going 
forward.
    Senator Wyden. Well, I appreciate your comment about 
applying sound climate science in your work at FERC. I would 
also note apropos of this whole issue, FERC does have authority 
to consider environmental impacts. In an April 28 decision, 
FERC said that, as part of a notice of inquiry, that it had to 
look at environmental issues surrounding pipelines. So I think 
that you and all other nominees that come before us in FERC 
have to be willing, almost, to put a prism up in front of them 
and say, how can I use my work consistent with the rules and 
statutes of FERC to do the best job of dealing with climate 
science because good climate science is going to affect 
everything that we do in our country? I happen to think good 
forest science is good climate science apropos what I said 
earlier, I think good climate science has got to be part of the 
work of FERC.
    Madam Chair, again, thank you for the extra time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
    Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thanks to both of you for your willingness to 
be considered for these important positions and for being here 
today.
    We will start with you, Mr. Christie. You have been, over 
the last 16 years as I recall, a regulator in Virginia. I 
believe you go by the title of Judge there. You don't wear a 
robe, but they call you Judge from time to time. Some have 
described you as a textualist, meaning that you have undertaken 
your role in Virginia as being to apply the law, to read the 
law based on what it says, rather than on the basis of what you 
might wish it said. Is that an approach that you take and is 
that something that you would bring to the table as a FERC 
Commissioner, if confirmed?
    Mr. Christie. Yes, Senator, and they call us Judge unless 
they got a bad result and then they call us something else 
but----
    [Laughter.]
    My approach is you have to follow the law and you start 
with the plain meeting. In Virginia the rule is the plain 
meeting is what the law, is what the legislative intent is, is 
if the laws, if the text is plain then you follow that. I think 
it's important, very important to follow it because if we don't 
have the rule of law you don't really have a democratic 
society. And so, I believe it's extremely important to follow 
the rule of law. And in any case when I approach a case, you 
start with the law and then you take the facts that are in the 
record.
    And Ms. Clements mentioned earlier that each case has a 
different factual record, and that's important to understand. 
They're not cookie cutter cases, especially infrastructure 
cases. It might be a transmission line one day. It might be a 
generating plant the next day. It might be a gas pipeline the 
next day. And so, it might be a DSM case the next day. In all 
those cases you have a different factual record. And I just 
believe very strongly you have to look at the entire factual 
record of a case and then apply the law. And let's remember 
where the law came from. At the state level, the law came from 
our elected legislators. At the federal level, it's going to 
come from you, the elected Members of the Congress. So, that's 
why it's important, I think, for an administrative body, such 
as the FERC, to follow the law that you, the Congress, wrote. 
You're the ones who are elected and that's what I've done for 
16 years in Virginia is follow the law that's been enacted by 
our elected legislators in the General Assembly.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Clements, I would like to talk to you for a minute. 
Let's talk about this concept of reasonable foreseeability. You 
are a lawyer by training. Do you remember first-year Torts 
class, what is often discussed as the Wagon Mound and Palsgraf 
line of cases? How does that standard relate to the tort 
standard? In other words, how does the tort standard relate to 
the concept of reasonable foreseeability in the context of 
FERC?
    Ms. Clements. Thanks, Senator, for the question.
    I certainly enjoyed the chance to speak with you about your 
home state and my adopted state for the last few years. So, 
appreciate that.
    I would not claim to be an expert on torts law nor was it 
my favorite class in my first year of law school. I certainly 
can speak to the requirements under the Natural Gas Act and 
NEPA when it comes to consideration of reasonably foreseeable 
impacts. As Chairman Christie just said, each record is fact 
specific and the requirement as a FERC Commissioner would be to 
apply the law under NEPA which was recently interpreted by the 
DC Circuit said that at least in some substantive 
circumstances, for example, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
downstream are reasonably foreseeable impacts and that would be 
something that would get incorporated into a NEPA analysis. But 
in each case I would have to look at the record to do my best 
job of applying that standard.
    Senator Lee. But you are aware of no reason why it couldn't 
be? Is that what you are saying? Why that could not be 
incorporated into NEPA analysis?
    Ms. Clements. I, without, kind of, getting into the 
unknown, sir, I would suggest that there is a reasonably 
foreseeable standard and there's courts interpreting it and as 
a FERC Commissioner my job would be to look at those, that 
precedent as well as existing FERC policy and apply it in each 
certification proceeding.
    Senator Lee. In one of your previous careers, one of your 
previous places of employment, you worked on the Sustainable 
FERC Project. The Sustainable FERC Project website contains a 
statement with the following words, ``FERC reviews critical 
questions like pipeline need and a project's carbon emissions 
through a restrictive and incomplete lens.'' Do you agree with 
that statement and, if so, what could you and would you do as a 
Commissioner to change that lens while remaining fair and 
unbiased to applicants?
    Ms. Clements. Sure, thanks, Senator.
    I left the FERC Project in 2015 and didn't work on Natural 
Gas Act issues. During my time there I was more focused on the 
Federal Power Act side of the ledger. Certainly, my role would 
be, in an instance that a certification proceeding came before 
me, would be to review the record and to look at the way that 
FERC has, per the law and per its policy, reviewed need and I 
would follow that as my guide.
    Senator Lee. Madam Chair, I see that my time has expired. I 
have one other question I would like to ask, if that is okay?
    The Chairman. That is okay.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    In a couple of your previous positions both with NRDC and 
with the Energy Foundation, a skeptic could argue that you have 
identified particular winners and losers within the energy 
industry. Tell me how your role would change if you were a 
member of FERC, if you were a FERC Commissioner. Would that be 
appropriate and would people be able to look to you as a FERC 
Commissioner as someone who is neutral and objective and not in 
this to pick winners or losers?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Lee. That's a fair 
question.
    I have represented a varied set of interests across my time 
in the energy sector and in each instance I have upheld my own 
oath, ethical oath, to protect and advocate for their interests 
to the best of my ability. When I would turn to the role of the 
FERC which is different, is an independent commission as 
defined in the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act that 
Senator Manchin, that Senator Manchin mentioned, excuse me, the 
requirements for being a Commissioner are that you can fairly 
represent and hear all interests that come before you in any 
given record. If I had the honor of being confirmed, that would 
be my approach.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like 
to echo the comments of my colleague, Senator Wyden, about fire 
that this Committee, obviously, has had so much of an oversight 
role and you and Senator Manchin, I hope, will continue to help 
us in this very critical time for our states. We have had lots 
of comments here about the impact of COVID that we asked the 
fire chief and many others about what we were going to do with 
the impact of COVID, and we are clearly seeing an impact. We 
are seeing it affect our firefighters and our ability to fight 
these fires. So I hope that in the coming days we will be able 
to think creatively about getting more resources for fighting 
fires, helping with FEMA, discussions we have had in the past 
about helping rural communities. Also, Madam Chair, I think 
this Committee could play a very key role in the future 
discussions now that we have seen what this fire season looks 
like this year, how much we want to accelerate the work that 
was previously done in giving new tools and resources to 
monitor and reduce fuel. I think we need to take this as a very 
important learning lesson and move forward. So thank you for 
your concerns and expressing your interest in this important 
issue.
    I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for having this 
hearing on FERC nominees. This has been a long process and a 
long battle, so thank you for trying to get a full FERC. This 
is such an important oversight and the Commissioners and their 
hard work and professional staffs have a lot cut out for them 
in today's environment because of, obviously, hundreds of 
billions of dollars that are invested in diversifying and 
decarbonization. I think this discussion this morning is very 
interesting about a price on carbon which I don't see the FERC 
being able to do, but on the other hand, there were people who 
were pushing FERC to basically say, put a tax on the American 
consumer by mandating that coal be the only reliable source. I 
mean, that is a very wrong-headed price by the FERC, in my 
opinion.
    So I think you guys, we are counting on you to make 
independent, science-based decisions that favor consumers, and 
I am pleased to see that we have two qualified nominees before 
us. There is a very big bright line for me though and FERC 
being a policeman on the beat and that is making sure that 
there are not market distortions, that there are not market 
manipulations or anti-competitive. Last year I sent a letter 
with our colleagues, Senators Wyden and King and several other 
Senators, expressing concerns that seem to indicate that the 
FERC Office of Enforcement may not be acting as vigilantly as 
in the past. And so in my opinion we have had deregulated 
markets, but you better have a policeman on the beat that is 
enforcing just and reasonable rates. And as FERC Commissioners, 
I hope you will be fully committed to stopping and punishing 
manipulative acts that can stifle competition and result in 
unjust and unreasonable rates.
    So I want to ask both of you, do you believe that energy 
markets can be competitive and produce just and reasonable 
rates if they are not free from market manipulation or other 
forms of fraud?
    Mr. Christie. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question. 
That's a very important issue. And let me just also say up 
front, I just, two days ago, had a long conversation with a 
state regulator from your State of Washington, who told me 
about the fires. He had just driven from Spokane to Seattle 
where he lives and he was telling me how terrible it is. So my 
sympathy goes out for what you're going through right now.
    Market manipulation is an extremely big threat to the trust 
that people have in these markets. And so, one thing we have to 
understand about these RTO markets, these wholesale markets, 
they're not true markets, they are regulatory constructs. We 
want competitive results from these regulatory constructs and 
getting those competitive results is the challenge. And 
there's, of course, a threat of market manipulation. I can 
pledge to you that, if I'm honored to go to FERC, to make sure 
that FERC uses all the tools in the tool box against market 
manipulation.
    I know Washington and Oregon are both considering whether 
maybe, someday, they might go into an RTO with California and 
have capacity markets. I can tell you from my experience in 
PJM; I've lived in PJM world for the last 16 years. It is 
absolutely essential that you have an independent market 
monitor in these RTO capacity markets and that we've had a lot 
of experience in PJM with the need for an independent market 
monitor. We have an outstanding Market Monitor in PJM, Dr. 
Bowring, and to get competitive results, you need constant 
market monitoring to ensure that you're not having 
manipulation.
    So I can promise you, if I'm honored to get to FERC, to be 
very sensitive about ensuring that FERC is, uses all the tools 
in its tool box and that these RTOs are having independent 
market monitoring.
    Senator Cantwell. My time is out----
    Mr. Christie. I'm sorry.
    Senator Cantwell. ----so including penalties and return to 
consumers?
    Mr. Christie. Well, I can't speak to individual remedies 
for individual cases because each one of these cases has an 
individual remedy and so, I don't want to speak to that. I'm 
saying I pledge that FERC should use all the tools that it's 
got available to it to act against market manipulation.
    Senator Cantwell. Serious, no market manipulation tools, 
Ms. Clements?
    Ms. Clements. Yes, ma'am, very serious.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator, and know again the 
commitment is to ensure that we are working together on these 
matters related to your state.
    Senator Gardner, you are next up in the rotation. Welcome.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
both of the nominees today for your willingness to serve. We 
greatly appreciate your commitment to public service.
    Judge Christie, a quick question for you. The FERC mission 
ensures that rates, terms, and conditions are just, reasonable, 
and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. What does just 
and reasonable mean to you?
    Mr. Christie. I think just and reasonable means I use the 
constitutional standard from Bluefield Water Works, a very 
famous case in utility law and that is it's fair to the 
producer and it's reasonable to the consumer. And I think what 
we have to look at in every case is making sure that that 
standard is met. I'm personally an advocate of least, trying to 
achieve the least cost to consumers based on the facts and the 
record. And I think that's one of the FERC's most important 
jobs. I think the Federal Power Act is ensuring just and 
reasonable rates is about protecting the consumer from paying 
rates that are above what I would call a market price. And of 
course, if you're in a cost to service regulation stance, 
there's a long formula that goes into that, but I think FERC's 
job is very important at making sure those rates are reasonable 
to the consumer.
    Senator Gardner. Ms. Clements, if you could answer the same 
question. What does a just and reasonable rate mean to you and 
that determination, how is it made?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
    The Federal Power Act at its core, is a consumer protection 
statute. And so, when it comes to considering just and 
reasonable rates, there needs to be fair rates and competition 
needs to be encouraged as is possible. And that is the core 
starting point for which I would approach any specific set of 
facts.
    Senator Gardner. In that determination, just and 
reasonable, do you take into account calculations on 
environmental issues, environmental justice issues or social 
justice issues?
    Ms. Clements. I think that, thank you, sir. I mean, not 
directly. I think that the question of, there is always a 
tradeoff between an investment and a cost and the system is, in 
large part, the electricity system, in particular, is outdated 
and needs modernization.
    Senator Gardner. So, in part----
    Ms. Clements. When it comes to----
    Senator Gardner. So sorry, continue, I am sorry.
    Ms. Clements. Under the just and reasonable standard, that 
is not the place where a lot of the concerns which are real and 
do get considered in records on environmental justice on impact 
to communities come into play.
    Senator Gardner. But so, you said, not directly, but in 
your mind environmental justice could go into the consideration 
of just and reasonable rates, is that correct?
    Ms. Clements. I would consider that, that consideration, 
sir, to the best of my knowledge right now, as a nominee who 
hasn't gone into any specific record coming into play when 
we're talking about specific approvals of infrastructure 
whether that be an interstate pipeline, an LNG facility, or a 
hydropower relicensing. That's the place where under NEPA, 
environmental considerations come into play directly under the 
law.
    Senator Gardner. But just to get down a little bit further 
on just and reasonable rates, you do not take that into 
consideration on rates?
    Ms. Clements. At the risk--I'd be happy to go back, sir, 
and look at the record, look at the way that that has played 
out under various aspects of the Federal Power Act. That is not 
something that I have familiarity with. Certainly, I understand 
the issues, the real issues that you raise when it comes to 
impact to communities and other environmental concerns, I would 
need to look more closely to see if there's a place in the just 
and reasonable analysis for those issues to be considered.
    Senator Gardner. From I think 2008 to 2016, you worked for 
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Can you name a 
major issue that you disagreed with the NRDC on?
    Ms. Clements. Sure. I think that, well, I don't actually 
know where NRDC stands on the issue today, but I think that the 
existing nuclear fleet plays an important role in providing 
carbon-free, reliable power to the system. That's a place where 
many of my very well-studied and smart colleagues might 
disagree with me. That's one place.
    Senator Gardner. Could you name another perhaps?
    Ms. Clements. You know, the NRDC was an organization of 
over 600 people when I worked there, all of whom were my 
respected colleagues, many of whom are my friends, and I'm sure 
we disagreed on a lot of issues. What I focused on was the 
Federal Power Act and the ways that the Congress has authorized 
the Commission to ensure the affordable, reliable delivery of 
electricity regardless of what's happening in the world around 
the Commission. And so, that's the role that I would be 
committed to if confirmed to this role.
    Senator Gardner. On natural gas production, the fossil fuel 
production, did you disagree with the NRDC on anything?
    Ms. Clements. You know, I'm sure many of our colleagues 
disagreed on many issues related to natural gas and fossil 
fuels. It was not an issue that I engaged in when I was at 
National Resources Defense Council or spent a lot of time 
engaging with colleagues on at that time.
    Senator Gardner. But you can't name anything that you 
disagreed with them on when it comes to their fossil fuels 
agenda?
    Ms. Clements. I honestly couldn't articulate the fossil 
fuels agenda for the organization right now. I've represented 
interests across the board as a project finance attorney and I 
represented the purchasers of six gas plants, three peakers and 
three non-peakers and, you know, did my best in that 
transaction to make sure that they got a fair deal in all of 
the contracts that they were engaging with. And so, that's the 
approach that I would take if confirmed to the Commission.
    Senator Gardner. All right, thank you. Thank you both for 
your time today, thank you. Madam Chair, thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Judge Christie, you quoted Justice 
Brandeis that, ``States are the laboratories of democracy and 
should be respected as such.'' However, a couple weeks ago, 
FERC voted to block proposed market changes by New York's grid 
operator that were aimed at aligning their markets with the 
state statutory policy goals. By law, New York has to receive 
70 percent of its power from clean sources by 2030, 100 percent 
by 2040. In a not dissimilar case, last year FERC issued an 
order that completely upended how state-backed, clean energy 
resources could compete in capacity markets run by the PJM 
Interconnection. Does FERC have a responsibility to respect 
these state statutes or should FERC feel empowered to 
effectively overrule state statutes?
    Mr. Christie. Well, thank you, Senator. I'm aware of both 
of those cases. I want to note that in the, I think the second 
case you referenced, which is commonly called the MOPR case----
    Senator Heinrich. Right.
    Mr. Christie. ----Virginia, my Commission filed comments in 
that case and we were, we asked that the final MOPR make sure 
that states that were vertically integrated in their utilities 
were doing self-supply would be exempted from the MOPR. So we 
took a position in that which I agree with. In the New York ISO 
case, I'm aware of that result too. What I want to avoid 
prejudging is on issues beyond what we took a position on in 
Virginia which is we wanted vertically integrated states to be 
exempt. I believe very strongly that every state has the, 
should have the authority, it does have the authority, to make 
its own generating decisions, resource decisions and, of 
course, many states, certainly in your part of the country, the 
Southwest, have not gone into RTOs. And so, it's totally up to 
state regulators what they do in terms of what their resource 
mix is.
    The cases you referenced are when states choose to go into 
an RTO and those RTOs are regulated by FERC. And the conundrum, 
or the challenge I could put it, is, and I'm a big believer in 
states' authorities to pick their own resource mix and not to 
get in the way of that. I think the question in a lot of these 
cases, and I'm not prejudging anything, is if the state is 
offloading costs of some of its policies onto consumers and 
other states, then what is--then FERC has a role because 
certainly you're dealing with interstate commerce. And so, but 
from the general principle, I think, states ought to have the--
well, they already do, and I would respect that--have the 
authority to make their own resource decisions.
    Senator Heinrich. Okay.
    I think we all agree with another statement you made that 
first and foremost we follow the law. One of you said that. 
That is sort of where we start in all of these cases. But there 
are cases where there is also discretion. And Judge Christie, 
you mentioned that when the statutes give discretion that FERC 
should be sensitive to its impacts on consumers.
    Mr. Christie. Right.
    Senator Heinrich. I certainly agree with that prospect.
    Given the enormous impacts today that we are seeing from 
climate change that are having on consumers that are occurring 
on financial markets, on property values and the impacts that 
climate change is actually now having on reliability as well, 
directly, when the statutes give discretion, should FERC 
consider the demonstrated climate impacts or the potential 
climate impacts of its decisions, especially if those impacts 
could be deleterious to either consumers and/or reliability?
    Mr. Christie. Well, I think you take--I think Ms. Clements 
mentioned earlier, every matter in front of FERC is a case. 
It's an individual case. It has an individual factual record 
and, of course, there's going to be a law applicable. And so, I 
think one thing you might be referencing is there's been a 
disagreement at FERC on a legal question about the downstream 
GHG emissions, what's required in an individual pipeline case. 
I don't want to prejudge that issue because that is a legal 
question about what does the law require and what is the DC 
Circuit opinion--commonly called the Sabal Trail Opinion--what 
does that DC Circuit opinion require?
    So I don't want to prejudge that because that's going to be 
a legal question that's going to come, if I am honored to get 
to FERC.
    Senator Heinrich. Yes, I am more getting at should you be 
considering the best available science within the bounds of, 
obviously, what the statutes call out and, as you make these 
decisions when there is discretion, should you be incorporating 
up-to-date, scientific information?
    Mr. Christie. I think you use the best available 
information in any case. The factual record, you want a 
complete factual record and I think that you go with the facts. 
And FERC is a primarily economic regulator. It has 
environmental duties. I would pledge to you to fulfill the 
environmental duties that FERC has, but I think in any factual 
record, as a regulator, I want to have the most complete 
factual record I can and I want to go with the facts and go 
with the realistic facts and take all those things into 
consideration.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I would like to address my first question to Mr. Christie 
and that is, do you support providing just and reasonable 
compensation for baseload generation resources and making sure 
that reliability and resiliency attributes are adequately 
compensated?
    Mr. Christie. Well, as a state regulator I spent 16 years 
providing fair support to generating units. We've approved a 
lot of generating units in Virginia. But we had that discussion 
with you on the telephone, which I very much enjoyed and thank 
you for that time. There are two--states fall into, really, two 
categories in terms of the generating units that are being 
built. Many states in the Southeast, Southwest, Northwest are 
not in RTOs and state regulators in those states have the 
authority to approve any generating, approve generating plants 
and to compensate generating plants as that state wants to 
compensate it. So that's a state decision.
    When a state chooses to go into an RTO or chooses to take 
its utilities into an RTO, then that RTO operates, most RTOs in 
America are operating capacity markets and those capacity 
markets are regulated by FERC, I mean, FERC would regulate the 
RTOs and the Federal Power Act is very clear that FERC cannot 
order an RTO to favor one generating resource over another. 
That's just, that's Federal Power Act, black letter law. So in 
those states that have chosen to go into those RTOs, FERC, it 
certainly regulates the reliability component and its job is to 
make sure that the RTOs and the ISOs are doing their planning 
properly to ensure reliability. But the Federal Power Act says 
to FERC, you cannot order an RTO to favor one generating 
resource over another in those capacity markets.
    Senator Hoeven. Ms. Clements, same question.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. I appreciate the 
question.
    I think two proportions of the Commission's jurisdiction 
are implicated when it comes to the compensation for baseload 
power and one is under the Federal Power Act, the just and 
reasonable rate responsibility that Chairman Christie just 
mentioned, in which case, FERC has no authority to choose, to 
compensate a particular type of fuel source or resource over 
another. It does have the requirement to ensure the ability for 
resources to compete on a level playing field. When it comes to 
the Commission's reliability jurisdiction, it's important to 
say, to look at the system from a reliability perspective and 
say, does the system have the sufficient reliability services 
to ensure that the demand or, excuse me, supply will be 
sufficient to meet electricity demand on a going forward basis 
and how do we do that at the most, in the most cost-efficient 
way.
    Senator Hoeven. Mr. Christie, do you believe that the lack 
of fuel diversity in California has caused a big part of their 
problem with the rolling blackouts and brownouts they have had? 
And what is FERC's role in ensuring that RTOs don't have those 
types of blackouts and brownouts. I don't think that is what 
consumers want. What role should FERC play?
    Mr. Christie. Senator, very good question, thank you and 
you're absolutely right. American consumers want a 24/7/365 
power supply. They don't want to lose power for hours or days 
or weeks. And so, FERC's job as a regulator of RTOs is to make 
sure that the RTOs--and California ISO is one of those--are 
doing their transmission, their transmission and generating 
planning and they're making sure they have adequate resources.
    The thing about the incident in California in August with 
the outages, one thing I've learned as a regulator is, I want 
to get all the facts before coming up with an opinion. And so, 
I think there's, a study is being done, an analyses being done 
by the California system operator, the Cal ISO. It's been well 
known in the utility area for years that California faces a 
challenge with what is known as the duck curve, that's the name 
for it, and that is because California has a large amount of 
solar and its solar ramps up during the day and demand ramps up 
during the day. What happens at night is, of course, the solar 
drops off, but the demand has stayed up there very high because 
of the hot weather. So the challenge that California ISO has 
had is trying to fill the gap between the drop-off in solar and 
the continuation of demand. They've been filling it with 
imports of electricity from other states in the West and so 
they've been trying to fill it, I think, with DR, demand 
response. But I think it's very important to get an after-
action report on how California ISO has met that challenge. And 
of course, they didn't meet it, obviously, when the blackouts 
took place because that's not the standard. But I would like to 
see the after-action report about how that could have been 
handled better and FERC's role, to get back to FERC, and Ms. 
Clements mentioned it. FERC's role as a regulator, FERC 
regulates the Cal-ISO, CAISO, and so, FERC has got to be very, 
very cognizant of what kind of planning is taking place and how 
is California planning to meet the challenge of phasing in a 
lot more solar, but what happens after the sun goes down and 
you have that gap between generation and demand?
    Senator Hoeven. And so, FERC's role is what?
    Mr. Christie. FERC's role is to regulate. FERC's role 
regulates the California ISO. So FERC's role is to make sure 
that the planning that's being done. And I would note, the head 
of the California ISO, Mr. Berberich, said just recently that, 
he said he'd been warning for years about the lack of 
generation that was available to fill the gap, the peak time. 
Now Mr. Berberich also said that they'd filled it and they'd 
met it with some, with demand response and doing some load 
shedding.
    FERC's role, specifically, is to ensure that these ISOs and 
RTOs are planning that they have the appropriate generating 
resources. And personally, I think that every state should have 
a balanced portfolio. I think a balanced portfolio generating 
resources is very important. There are other resources like 
storage and demand response that are part of that mix, but as a 
state regulator, I'm a big believer that each state should have 
a balanced portfolio so you can make sure you fill the gaps and 
you hit the peaks. That's the important thing is you've got to 
hit the peak demands when they come on. And what happened in 
California was they didn't hit the peak demand. They didn't 
have sufficient generation. And so, they had the blackouts. And 
FERC's job is to make sure that those things don't happen, but 
its direct job as a regulator is to do it by regulating these 
RTOs and ISOs.
    Senator Hoeven. Ms. Clements, the same question.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator.
    You know, the people of California are facing a lot these 
days. When it comes specific, when you ask specifically about 
the proactive safety shutoffs that happened in August, as 
Chairman Christie said, the investigation is still underway and 
the issues are likely to come before the Commission and so I 
wouldn't want to prejudge that.
    Though the experience in California does highlight an 
inflection point for the Commission related to resource 
adequacy authority and that balance under the Federal Power Act 
of the role of the Commission as relates to the role of the 
states in ensuring reliability and just and reasonable rates.
    Senator Hoeven. So FERC does have a role in making sure 
that the baseload power is there and available?
    Ms. Clements. FERC has a role, certainly FERC has a role in 
ensuring reliability under Section 215 and that requires 
whatever the resource mix is, if the grid system is not 
ensuring reliability sufficiently then FERC would, it would be 
incumbent upon the Commission to take a hard look at that and 
see what needs to be done. Certainly, if confirmed, that would 
be something that I would commit to doing.
    Senator Hoeven. You acknowledge California has a problem 
and that we don't want to have blackouts and brownouts in any 
of the states--correct?
    Ms. Clements. Absolutely, across the country it is critical 
for individuals, for families, for businesses, for schools, to 
have access to reliable, affordable electricity.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    First I want to thank you and Senator Manchin for pushing 
this process forward and thank the President for these two 
exceptional nominees.
    I have been listening to this discussion and we have sort 
of been talking around an interesting issue and I don't know 
the answer to it, but in business we have a concept called life 
cycle cost where you look at the cost over a long period of 
time, not just at the time you write the check. It strikes me 
that that really gets at the heart of this discussion about 
environmental externalities as they fit into the rate. You can 
say a rate is just and reasonable but if those life cycle costs 
of floods, fires, excessive storm damage, if those are factored 
in, then that is part of whether the rate is just and 
reasonable, I would argue. I realize that is a big question, 
but I think it is worth talking about. It is, you can't just 
take a snapshot in time and say this is just and reasonable if 
that decision leads to greater costs later on that will be 
borne by consumers.
    A couple of specific questions. Ms. Clements, the role of 
storage demand and demand response and distributed generation 
in the, sort of, mix of capacity and how you make those kinds 
of calculations--give me your thought, please.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator King, and I've enjoyed and 
appreciated watching your leadership on storage issues and 
demand side resource issues and opportunities.
    Under the Federal Power Act, it's incumbent upon FERC to 
ensure that its regional markets and, well, its electricity 
markets are open to competition, that there is not undue 
discrimination against any type of resource. And as we've seen 
over the last 10, 15 years, the storage market has really 
evolved. Demand side resource opportunities have evolved, smart 
energy efficiency has evolved, and all of these resources have 
the ability to provide both electricity and reliability 
services to the system. And so, FERC has taken some action. 
There are certainly actions still before the Commission on this 
question about how to ensure that the markets are open to 
opportunities for the resources like the ones that you mention. 
And if confirmed, that would be a priority for me to continue 
going forward, looking at the markets and then trying to ensure 
that discrimination is not taking place so that American 
innovation has the ability to keep growing the type of 
resources and others, that have resources you mention and 
others.
    Senator King. So those resources like storage, demand 
response, should be able to compete and be allowed to compete 
in the capacity market, is that your view?
    Ms. Clements. Yes, it's--yes, sir. The FERC should not, if 
there are, if resources have the ability to perform technically 
to provide a service that the Commission has deemed worthy of 
compensation, then all resources with the technical 
characteristics that allowed it to compete should be able to 
compete.
    Senator King. One comment for both of you, and I discussed 
this with both of you previously this week.
    I am very concerned about the cybersecurity of the gas 
pipeline system. I am concerned about the grid generally. I 
don't think we are as secure as we think we are, but 
particularly the gas pipeline system which you have, the FERC 
has, a role of regulating pipelines, allowing pipelines, 
permitting pipelines, but TSA has the responsibility of the 
security, cybersecurity of pipelines. I would like both of your 
thoughts on (a) whether you see that as a significant issue and 
(b) whether you believe that should be a FERC responsibility 
and do we need a statutory change to shift the responsibility 
from TSA to FERC?
    Mr. Christie. Well, Senator, thank you for that question.
    Cybersecurity is a huge issue and our Commission has been 
putting a lot of emphasis on it, working with our utilities and 
encouraging them on cybersecurity, and they've been doing a 
very good job on it. I know FERC has got an office dedicated to 
cybersecurity and FERC is taking it very seriously and 
elevating it to the importance that it deserves. Pipeline 
safety, specifically, I would note that we, as a state 
regulator, do the pipeline safety in Virginia and we do it 
under a contract with the federal pipeline, it's called PHMSA, 
the acronym for Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety 
Administration, and that's worked very well. We do it through 
a--I guess you'd call that cooperative federalism.
    As far as the role for FERC's job, FERC is to make sure 
that the pipelines, that cybersecurity has been elevated to a 
priority. It has done that.
    And I think the issue about whether there needs to be 
additional federal legislation, I don't, I haven't formed an 
opinion on that, but I can promise you if I'm honored to get to 
FERC, that certainly will be a priority to be cognizant of and 
to continue working with the office and the great staff the 
FERC already has who are working on that cybersecurity issue.
    Senator King. Well, in New England the gas pipeline system 
is a de facto part of the electric grid because about 60 
percent of our power comes from gas, none of which comes from 
the region, all of which comes via pipeline. So if there is a 
failure, if there is a cyberattack on the pipeline system, the 
grid will go down just as if there were an attack on a SCADA 
system in an operating plant or at the ISO.
    Mr. Christie. And the question?
    Senator King. Well, I just commend that to both of your's 
attention. I think this is a very, very serious issue that will 
only increase in its significance. So not really a question, 
just urging you to take this issue of pipeline security, 
cybersecurity, very seriously as you move on to the Commission.
    Thank you, both.
    Mr. Christie. Well thank you and I can certainly make that 
pledge to take it very seriously, because it is an extremely 
serious issue, Senator. Thank you.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you and I, too, want to thank 
the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing, 
so important, and congratulations to both of you as nominees.
    Let me follow up first on Senator King's questioning 
because cybersecurity attacks and cybersecurity are also a 
concern of mine. I know on July 21st of this year, FERC and the 
North American Electric Reliability Corporation published a 
cybersecurity guide for the power sector which covered four 
non-invasive techniques that security professionals could use 
to identify chips produced by foreign companies. I guess my 
question to both of you, because this is such a topical and 
timely issue and it is happening, we hear it all the time. I 
hear it in Nevada when I am talking to so many in this 
profession. Have you thought about or what could FERC be doing 
to ensure that both our urban and rural grids are protected? I 
would love to get your thoughts on that if you have any opinion 
around that and what you would bring to FERC to address this 
issue.
    Let me start with Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator, for the important 
question and the chance to speak to it.
    The time I spent on the National Academy of Sciences 
committee on grid resilience really opened my eyes to the 
magnitude of the cyber threat that is persistent and increasing 
for the United States. And I know this Committee has done a lot 
of good work and proposed legislation on that front. FERC 
worked with the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation, as you mentioned, to establish a critical 
infrastructure protection standard for supply chain risk 
mitigation which is one of the, if not the most important 
aspect. I put it among the top of the obligations for the 
Commission under its Section 215 reliability authority.
    As a nominee, I don't have access to the confidential 
information that says what should the Commission's next steps 
be on this issue and how is the critical infrastructure 
protection standard working, but certainly similar to Chairman 
Christie, if confirmed, I would commit to making this issue and 
staying vigilant going forward a priority.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. I'll just reiterate what Ms. Clements said. 
This is a huge issue, the threat of cyber threats to our grid, 
to pipelines and I can commit that if I'm honored to get to 
FERC to continue to put that, to give it the priority it 
deserves and I know and FERC has already done quite a bit on 
it. They have an office dedicated to it. FERC, of course, works 
with other federal agencies and quasi-independent agencies like 
NERC, the National Reliability Council. And so it's a very 
important issue, and I can certainly pledge to you to continue 
to elevate it to the priority it deserves.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate your comments 
on that.
    Let me jump back and talk about, there has been a lot of 
questioning about FERC's role in incorporating environmental 
impacts into its decision-making. Let me give you a specific 
example. In Nevada, we have been working against the odds and 
among growing threats from climate change to restore Walker 
Lake. It is one of Nevada's desert terminus lakes; however, 
much of the concern of the tribal community and the local 
stakeholders there who have dedicated decades of times and 
resources to building back the lake's delicate ecosystem. In 
March of this year FERC issued a preliminary permit to a 
California company to study the feasibility of a 2,000 megawatt 
pumped storage project on the lake.
    Now I understand that preliminary permits do not allow for 
any land disturbance activities or constructions, but they do 
provide the permitee a priority spot in line to file a license 
application should they choose to move forward. So my question 
to you is, when it comes to environmental impacts of 
infrastructure projects, where do you see FERC's role?
    Mr. Christie. Well, thank you, Senator, and I'm going to 
assume with regard to the individual generating plant, hydro 
plant, that you're mentioning, that's probably still pending. 
I'm assuming that's pending at FERC and so, I don't want to, 
obviously, say anything that would prejudge that individual 
application.
    Any application for an infrastructure project, whether it's 
a generating plant, pipeline, or some other sort of 
infrastructure project--we do transmission line siting in 
Virginia--has to be approached with an extensive factual record 
and then you apply the law to the record. And so the laws that 
apply are the laws of the case and the environmental aspects of 
that are written out in statute, and I can certainly pledge to 
you that if I'm honored to get to FERC that the laws that apply 
to a case, and they include environmental aspects like FERC's 
duties under NEPA, I would certainly pledge to carry out the 
fullest duties that FERC has, statutorily, which includes the 
environmental impact that NEPA requires.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Let me just touch on this because 
this is one of two permits by the same company. They have 
actually come and done something similar and filed a permit 
with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and this tribe in Nevada has 
filed a comment letter in Nevada opposing the project. So it is 
pending, and I recognize you can't talk about it, but to the 
extent that you are hearing from stakeholders, particularly 
tribal communities, who have concerns about their cultural 
sites and these particularly, in this case, Pyramid Lake Paiute 
Tribe, that water source is within their jurisdiction and key 
to this tribe. What could I tell them that you are going to 
consider from their comments, particularly as it addresses the 
ecosystem of their tribal concerns? I mean, are they wasting 
their time by filing a comment in opposition, I guess is my 
point?
    Mr. Christie. Well, Senator, again, and thank you for the 
question and, obviously, I'm not going to respond about a 
specific case----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Right. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Christie. ----and what's going to happen or not happen. 
I can say this, in 16 years in Virginia we've had many 
infrastructure cases. A lot of them are very controversial. 
Siting transmission lines is usually not a non-controversial 
project because people don't want to look at them and so, 
therein, very controversial. We've had cases where we had 
hundreds of people come out in opposition to a transmission 
line. And so, what I can pledge is I'm a big believer in giving 
the public the fullest opportunity to comment in cases that 
affect them. I'm not familiar because I've not been to FERC. 
I'm not a member of FERC, but with the public comment 
procedures that are built into FERC's procedures, I can promise 
you, if I'm honored to get to FERC, that I think in any 
infrastructure case which affects people, that the fullest 
public comment should be made available consistent with what 
the statute says and what the procedures are.
    And I've got a 16-year track record of, we've had cases 
where we've had literally thousands of comments. And believe 
me, we take them, we give them the strongest consideration, but 
of course, at the end of the day, you have to follow the law. 
But it's very important to give the public that right to 
comment and right to give their input, and I believe that very 
strongly.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    I know I have gone over my time. Thank you, Madam Chair, 
for your indulgence.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Chair Murkowski.
    Ms. Clements, Mr. Christie, thank you both for being here 
today. I first want to invite you both to come out to Montana 
and to see firsthand the issues that we are talking about here 
today. I believe it is important for you both to see this 
unique balance that Montana has been able to deliver and that 
is, understanding that we want to protect our way of life there 
in Montana and we want to continue to be able to deliver 
affordable, reliable energy every day.
    Montana is all about balance. It is reflected in the way 
that we live. In fact, you can see a coal miner in Eastern 
Montana will also be an avid outdoorsman. During the week, they 
are on the job. On the weekends, we are outside either with a 
fishing pole in our hands, fly rod, or a rifle or a bow. A 
refinery worker in Great Falls who also is a member of a local 
wildlife conservation group. That is how we ride in Montana. We 
balance high-paying energy jobs with protecting our environment 
and promoting conservation. This is also reflected in our 
energy portfolio. Our state electricity generation is about 
half renewable and about half traditional. I was glad to see 
this Committee, years ago and the leadership here with Chair 
Murkowski helping us out, it actually made hydro defined as a 
renewable source of energy. Of course, only Washington, DC, 
would not classify hydro as being renewable and we got that 
fixed which I am grateful that we did. So we are about half and 
half, about half renewable with when you add hydro to that mix 
and about half with coal making up the rest, in general. To 
maintain this balance is critical for the high-paying jobs it 
provides as well as keeping the lights on and the heat running 
in Montana.
    So I have a few questions and I will just, kind of, go back 
and forth here. I will just start left to right with Mr. 
Christie. Do you believe it is important for energy jobs and 
our electricity grid to have a balanced portfolio with 
renewables like hydro, wind, and solar and traditional fuels 
like coal, oil, and gas?
    Mr. Christie. Well, thank you, Senator, and yes, I'd love 
to come to Montana. So that's the easy answer.
    I do think each state should have a balanced portfolio, one 
that's unique to that state and one that meets that states' 
needs. Generation planning and generation approval, you know, 
generating plants are approved by state regulators and I've 
been one for 16 years and I think it's very important in a 
state that you have a balanced portfolio and one that's going 
to meet your needs, that's going to run the gamut from baseload 
that runs 24/7 and, of course, we're going through a transition 
in America working in wind and solar. So I think balance is 
important. The important thing is reliability. In states that 
are in RTOs have given the planning function, of course, the 
RTO planners are largely deciding and making decisions on, 
certainly on transmission planning and what transmission lines 
should be built to serve the generation and serve reliability. 
But yes, I do believe that states should have a balanced 
portfolio.
    Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Christie.
    Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Daines, for the question. 
I too--my sister and brother-in-law from Anaconda would 
certainly appreciate me spending more time in Montana, so I 
would love to take you up on the invitation. I think spending 
the last six years with my family in Utah has given me more of 
an appreciation for states in the West. And so, while I can't 
relate specifically to the way you describe your state, I 
certainly can from a neighboring state.
    I think the diversity of the resource mix is a really 
important contribution to reliability, period. And I think that 
it's important that each state get to pursue their own resource 
mix, whatever the state policy preferences might be. And so, in 
both cases I see the Commission's role as, in light of those, 
the power that's reserved to the states under the Federal Power 
Act, continuing to think about just and reasonable rates and 
reliability in the context of each state's mix.
    Senator Daines. Yes, thank you. I will tell you right now, 
we can see how not to do it. California has now put all their 
eggs in one basket and I will tell you what, they can't deliver 
electricity now to their people here. So sometimes we can look 
at how to do it and how not to do it.
    I want to do follow-up questions. As a FERC Commissioner 
will you make decisions based on the law and not--and you will 
also be fuel and technology neutral?
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Senator, that--yes.
    Senator Daines. Okay.
    Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Yes, sir.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    I want to talk about the Keystone pipeline next. The 
Keystone XL pipeline enters Montana. In fact, it is the first 
state it enters when it comes from Canada down to the United 
States. It will provide hundreds of high-paying jobs, millions, 
in fact, tens of millions of tax revenues to our Eastern 
Montana counties which badly need it. Despite years of 
scientific study, lengthy permitting processes and strong local 
support, the pipeline still faces issues. The Keystone XL 
pipeline, as well as a handful of other pipelines currently 
being permitted in Montana, is hugely important for Eastern 
Montana and our rural communities. While you may not have 
jurisdiction over Keystone as a FERC Commissioner, you will 
play an important role in the approval of other interstate 
pipelines that have similar economic impacts on Montana. 
Unfortunately, we have seen too many times that are, these 
thoroughly researched, safe pipeline projects are canceled. 
They are denied after going through years of litigation. This 
hurts our jobs, it hurts our communities, and with that good 
old Montana balance, it also harms our environment.
    My question is, have you in the past or do you currently 
have a bias against natural resource pipelines, including the 
Keystone XL pipeline?
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. No.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. No.
    Senator Daines. As a FERC Commissioner will you look at 
pipeline approvals objectively?
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Yes.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Yes.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    My last question. FERC has spent the last couple of years 
streamlining and modernizing the regulations. Many of my 
colleagues and I worked with FERC on modernizing PURPA and 
other regulations. My question is, do you support FERC's recent 
modernization efforts, including the modernization of PURPA?
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Senator, my understanding is--thank you for 
the question--my understanding is there's several petitions for 
reconsideration pending. So that's still a live case and if I 
get honored to get to FERC, I'll probably find myself ruling on 
that, what is still a pending case. I will say that, in 
general, I believe that when LSEs, Load Serving Entities, are 
purchasing power it ought to be purchased at the least cost, 
subject to what the law might require. But I believe in the 
least cost purchasing principle.
    Senator Daines. Thanks.
    Ms. Clements.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you. With a similar caveat on the open 
case at the Commission, I do think that, to your question, it's 
appropriate for the Commission in all areas of its jurisdiction 
from time to time to review its policies when, in light of 
changing circumstances.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Last question, and I am over my time. Many of the 
modernization efforts put more control at the local level. Do 
you support having the local utility regulators have more say 
in local energy issues?
    I will start with you, Ms. Clements, this time.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, sir.
    The state--the Federal Power Act reserves to states and 
then substates a lot of authority under the Federal Power Act 
to choose its own resource mix and to engage in local control, 
and I'm certainly supportive of that.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Thank you, Senator.
    As a state regulator that is so easy to answer, yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Daines. All right. Well, thanks for your answers. I 
appreciate it.
    Ms. Clements, I hope you come out and see your family in 
Anaconda.
    Ms. Clements. Thanks.
    Senator Daines. And Mr. Christie, I hope we can get you out 
there as well.
    Thanks for your time.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
    We have a series of votes that have started, so I am going 
to wrap up. But before I do I have just two more quick 
questions, hopefully, but I think the range of questions that 
you have heard from Committee members is indicative of the 
interest and a real awareness as to the significance and the 
importance of the FERC and the role that Commissioners play. 
You spoke to that role as an independent commissioner operating 
as an impartial economic regulator here. I think that is, 
again, incredibly important to reinforce here.
    We talk a lot about not picking winners and losers and you 
have both indicated that the FERC's role is really to focus on 
economic--what was it? Economic, technology neutral, regulatory 
agency, I think was the comment that you made, Ms. Clements. 
But again, the significance and the importance of recognizing 
that while we seek to have that balance, that it is not the 
FERC's role to prefer one type of power over another. You have 
touched on the pipeline approval process which for FERC, 
particularly at this time, is so key. In conversations with 
both of you, you have mentioned the significance and the high, 
high priority that we must place on cybersecurity and ensuring 
that our nation's energy sector is as secure as we can possibly 
address. Ms. Clements, you spoke to the role on carbon pricing 
and where we are with that technical conference ongoing.
    The question that I will ask of you, Ms. Clements, when we 
spoke on the phone the other day and in your questionnaire to 
the Committee, you mentioned your service on the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee that produced this report, 
``Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation's Electric System.'' 
That was a good effort. I have been, as you know, very focused 
on reliability and resilience for the electricity system for 
years and supported the appropriations that helped lead to that 
NAS report, and I support the recommendations of that. 
Recommendation 11, which is directed to FERC in particular, 
urges FERC and the North American Energy Standards Board to 
address what they call the growing risk of independent natural 
gas and electric infrastructure. So the question to you is 
whether or not you support Recommendation 11 and give me a 
little bit of background on that. If not, why not, but in light 
of the recommendation, does it make sense for FERC to increase 
regulatory risk, costs, and delays for certification of new 
interstate natural gas pipeline infrastructure? If you can 
speak to Recommendation 11.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator. I'll have to go back and 
look to the very specifics of that recommendation and I'm not 
sure if I totally understand the end piece, but in terms of the 
risk and the criticality of the interstate pipeline system to 
the bulk electricity systems, reliability and resilience, the 
two are inextricably tied. And so, ensuring, you know, 
reliability across the board is an important component of the 
Commission's 215 reliability obligations and certainly, just in 
general, important. And so, I'm happy to take to the record 
more specific answer on the details of that recommendation, if 
that makes sense.
    The Chairman. Well it does make sense. I mean, knowing that 
you were part of that committee and, again, I appreciate that. 
I happen to think that that recommendation is important, that 
we do address the risk of the interdependence of the 
infrastructure. I think we are seeing some of that play out in 
and, again, this is an area of jurisdiction for the FERC.
    Ms. Clements. Thank you. I missed part of that question, 
but absolutely. The Commission has started to do some work on 
addressing interdependence issues. Commissioner LaFleur and 
Commissioner Moeller were leaders on that for some time, and I 
think there's still some work to do on that front. I certainly, 
if confirmed, commit to following their path forward and 
accessing where we are and any necessary next steps.
    The Chairman. Last question for both of you. There has been 
much discussion about the situation in California and the 
impacts to reliability and those challenges. I guess I am 
asking you to be critical of the FERC, if you will, which may 
put you in a difficult position, but there are those who are 
trying to understand FERC's role in ensuring that we don't have 
these rolling blackouts that we saw in August, not only in 
California but in any other state. The question is, is whether 
you believe in this instance with what we are seeing, what we 
have seen in California, whether FERC should have been more 
aggressive in ensuring reliability in California given where we 
are right now?
    Mr. Christie. Senator, thank you for that question.
    As I mentioned in my earlier answer about the first 
question on the California situation, one thing I've learned 
over 16 years is you want to get all the facts before you come 
to a conclusion. And so, to say that FERC was not as cognizant 
as it should have been, I think, is premature to say at this 
point. Generating resource decisions are made at the state 
level. It's state regulators that make decisions to build or 
not build. And in California what's going to be interesting to 
see and important to see is how decisions in California about 
what to build and what not to build and what to shut down, you 
know, they're shutting down San Onofre, they've shut down 
other, a lot of gas resources, whether that was the cause, was 
it the lack of purchase power agreements with other generating 
resources across the West. They'd been importing a lot of coal-
fired electricity, quite frankly, from states like Idaho and 
Wyoming to make up the gap, you know, that happens at night 
when the duck curve, what's called the duck curve, takes place.
    So was FERC responsible for that? I think it's very 
premature to say who was responsible. Again, generating 
resource decisions are largely a state level decision about 
what to build and what to shut down. FERC's job, of course, is 
to be paying attention to these RTOs and making sure these RTOs 
and ISOs, like the California ISO, are doing their reliability 
planning, but even the ISO can't force a state to approve a 
generating plant. So I think that all has to be studied and I 
think it's a very interesting case study and a very important 
case study. And I really look forward to seeing the final 
results and all the facts about what led to those blackouts 
because blackouts are unacceptable. We don't accept blackouts 
in America. We want power 24/7/365 and anything less than that 
is not meeting the standard that we want.
    The Chairman. Well, and again, that is why the FERC is so 
important.
    I am going to conclude our hearing. We are about 30 minutes 
into the vote and I do not want to be disrespectful holding my 
colleagues with a vote that we know we have several coming on.
    I want to thank you both for not only your direct questions 
here today, greatly appreciated. I know colleagues will be 
submitting questions for the record. We would ask that you try 
to be as prompt with your reply as possible. As I mentioned 
before the hearing, this is the first step in your 
confirmation, well, maybe the second step. You have gotten the 
President's nomination, we have now held this hearing, and we 
will figure out the next steps in terms of how we might be able 
to proceed to move your names through this process. But I 
appreciate your willingness to serve, and I appreciate your 
service in the past. Thank you for your attention to these very 
significant national issues as we focus on our energy security 
and resilience and reliability and affordability.
    With that, the Committee stands adjourned, and we thank you 
very much.
    [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]