[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






 
                     THE ROLE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS


             FIRMS IN PREVENTING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               before the

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                     Wednesday, September 14, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-25

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
       
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
          
                        ______
                 
              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 48-637PDF          WASHINGTON : 2023
        
          
          
          
          
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Louie Gohmert, TX
Jim Costa, CA                        Doug Lamborn, CO
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Robert J. Wittman, VA
    CNMI                             Tom McClintock, CA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Garret Graves, LA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Joe Neguse, CO                       Daniel Webster, FL
Mike Levin, CA                       Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Katie Porter, CA                     Russ Fulcher, ID
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Pete Stauber, MN
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Mary Sattler Peltola, AK             Jerry L. Carl, AL
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Diana DeGette, CO                    Blake D. Moore, UT
Julia Brownley, CA                   Yvette Herrell, NM
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Lauren Boebert, CO
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Jay Obernolte, CA
Darren Soto, FL                      Cliff Bentz, OR
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Connie Conway, CA
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Vacancy
Ed Case, HI
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                       Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                        KATIE PORTER, CA, Chair
                   BLAKE D. MOORE, UT, Ranking Member

Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Louie Gohmert, TX
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Jody B. Hice, GA
Steve Cohen, TN                      Vacancy
Jared Huffman, CA                    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, September 14, 2022....................     1

Statement of Members:

    Moore, Hon. Blake D., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
    Porter, Hon. Katie, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Arena, Christine, Founder and CEO, Generous Ventures, Inc., 
      San Francisco, California..................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    16
    Aronczyk, Melissa, Associate Professor, School of 
      Communications & Information, Rutgers University, Brooklyn, 
      New York...................................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21
    Cooke, Amy O., Chief Executive Officer, John Locke 
      Foundation, Raleigh, North Carolina........................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
    Foster, Anne Lee, Former Director of Communication and 
      Community Engagement, Colorado Rising, Paonia, Colorado....    30
        Prepared statement of....................................    32
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    35

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    List of documents submitted for the record retained in the 
      Committee's official files.................................    66

    Submission for the Record by Representative Hice

        E-mails regarding the FTI subpoena threat................    44

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Porter

        Screen captures of protesters following signature 
          gatherers..............................................    64
        Leaked e-mail from Anadarko..............................    65
        ExxonMobil ad............................................    66
                                     



                    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ROLE OF



     PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS IN PREVENTING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

                              ----------                              


                     Wednesday, September 14, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in 
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Katie Porter 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Porter, Velazquez, Garcia, 
Grijalva; Moore, Gohmert, and Hice.
    Also present: Representatives Boebert, Graves, Khanna, 
Lowenthal, Rosendale, Tonko, and Trahan.
    Ms. Porter. The Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations will come to order.

    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
role of public relations firms in preventing action on climate 
change.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority 
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our 
witnesses sooner and help keep Members to their schedules.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the 
hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
permitted to ask questions of the witnesses at today's hearing: 
the Member from Massachusetts, Representative Trahan; the 
Member from New York, Representative Tonko; the Member from 
California, Representative Khanna; the Member from California, 
Representative Lowenthal; the Member from Montana, Mr. 
Rosendale; the Member from Louisiana, Mr. Graves; and the 
Member from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess, 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    As described in the notice, statements, documents, or 
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at 
[email protected]. Members physically present should 
provide a hard copy for staff to distribute by e-mail.
    Please note that Members are responsible for their own 
microphones. As with our fully in-person meetings, Members can 
be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
    Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to make an 
opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATIE PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Porter. I am here today in Washington after spending 
several weeks home in Orange County, California. My community, 
my state, just suffered through one of the worst heat waves 
ever experienced. We know that climate change is real and it 
requires urgent action.
    For years, this Committee and Congress have tried to pass 
legislation at the scale required to address the problem. Again 
and again, we failed. Until finally, this summer, we passed the 
Inflation Reduction Act. This law is the biggest investment in 
clean energy in our nation's history.
    But this fight is far from over. Big Oil has shown that 
they will wage information warfare to stop legislation that 
would end our country's reliance on fossil fuels. And more 
often than not, when big oil fights, they win. Disinformation 
has been a major cause. Fossil fuel companies aren't creating 
and spreading disinformation themselves. They are buying it 
from public relations firms.
    At today's hearing, we will examine the tactics and 
strategies that PR firms use to persuade lawmakers and the 
public to trust Big Oil. The most familiar tactic is old-
fashioned marketing. I would like to play one ad as an example.

    [Video.]

    [Video is retained in the Committee's official files as 
``The Power Of'' ad from the American Petroleum Institute.]

    Ms. Porter. On its surface, this ad is completely benign, 
just a company celebrating its service for a community after a 
natural disaster.
    But stop and consider what we know about climate change. 
Fossil fuels are causing the atmosphere to heat rapidly, 
increasing the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Oil and 
gas companies know that they are fueling these horrific 
disasters, but then they have the nerve to hire PR firms to 
turn these tragedies into crass marketing opportunities. It is 
breathtaking in its shamelessness.
    This is the new face of climate disinformation. Fossil fuel 
companies used to discount the science of climate change. Now 
fossil fuel companies want to convince Americans that Big Oil 
itself is part of the solution, so that we will allow it to 
continue their assault on our environment.
    The PR firms we are discussing today play a critical role 
in this disinformation effort. We will hear testimony from Anne 
Lee Foster, who ran a campaign to pass a ballot initiative to 
limit fracking in Colorado. She was followed and harassed. Her 
trainings were infiltrated. Volunteers had threatening 
materials sent to their homes. There were alleged bribes to 
sabotage the signature-gathering effort. All of these 
despicable tactics were the work of PR professionals hired by 
Big Oil.
    We invited the PR firm Pac/West to testify and help us 
understand their tactics during the Colorado ballot initiative. 
They declined.
    We invited Story Partners, another PR firm that was 
implicated in the Colorado ballot initiative. They declined.
    We invited Singer Associates to tell us about their fake 
news website that was created to improve Chevron's standing in 
the community after their negligence caused a massive refinery 
fire that sent 15,000 community members to the hospital. They 
declined.
    At this point, we might ask, what are these firms trying to 
hide? But thanks to documents that this Committee has obtained 
and released, we know some of the answers.
    These PR firms create shell organizations that claim to 
represent large numbers of people in their advocacy for Big 
Oil's priorities, when they really just represent the companies 
that can afford to hire PR firms. They attack people on the 
opposing side personally. They set up fake online profiles to 
infiltrate non-profit groups. I encourage the American people 
to look at this Committee's report for a glimpse under the hood 
at these PR firms' tactics.
    These tactics are not universal in the public relations 
industry. In fact, there are already signs that individuals and 
entire companies are moving away from this work. I hope the PR 
industry will continue to shun such tactics and the firms that 
use them. Until then, this Committee's investigation will 
continue.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Porter follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California
    I'm here today in Washington after spending several weeks back home 
in Orange County, California. My community just suffered through one of 
the worst heat waves our state has ever experienced. We know that 
climate change is real and it requires urgent action.
    For years, this Committee and Congress have tried to pass 
legislation at the scale required to address the problem. Again and 
again, we failed. Until finally, this summer, we passed the Inflation 
Reduction Act. This law is the biggest investment in clean energy in 
our nation's history.
    But this fight is far from over. Big Oil has shown that they will 
wage information warfare to stop legislation that would end our 
country's reliance on fossil fuels. And more often than not, when Big 
Oil fights, they win. Disinformation has been a major cause.
    Fossil fuel companies aren't creating and spreading disinformation 
themselves--they are buying it. From public relations firms.
    At today's hearing, we will examine the tactics and strategies that 
PR firms use to persuade lawmakers and the public to trust Big Oil. The 
most familiar tactic is old-fashioned marketing. Let's play one ad as 
an example.
    On the surface, this ad is completely benign. Just a company 
celebrating its service for a community after a natural disaster.
    But stop and consider what we know about climate change. Fossil 
fuels are causing the atmosphere to heat rapidly, increasing the 
intensity and frequency of hurricanes.
    Oil and gas companies know they are fueling these horrific 
disasters, but they have the nerve to hire PR firms to turn these 
tragedies into crass marketing opportunities. It's breathtaking in its 
shamelessness.
    This is the new face of climate disinformation. Fossil fuel 
companies used to try to debate the science of climate change. Now 
fossil fuel companies want to convince Americans they are part of the 
solution so we will let them continue their assault on our environment.
    The PR firms we are discussing today play a critical role in this 
effort. We will hear testimony from Anne Lee Foster, who ran a campaign 
to pass a ballot initiative to limit fracking in Colorado. She was 
followed and harassed. Her trainings were infiltrated. Volunteers had 
threatening materials sent to their homes. There were alleged bribes to 
sabotage the signature gathering effort. All of these tactics were the 
work of PR professionals hired by Big Oil.
    We invited the PR Firm Pac/WEST to testify and help us understand 
their tactics and why they engaged in them during the Colorado ballot 
initiative. They declined. We invited Story Partners, another PR firm 
that was implicated in that Colorado ballot initiative. They declined.
    We invited Singer Associates to tell us about their fake news 
website that was created to improve Chevron's standing in the community 
after their negligence caused a massive refinery fire that sent 15,000 
community members to the hospital. They declined. At this point, we 
might ask what these firms are trying to hide. But thanks to documents 
this committee has obtained and released, we know some of the answers.
    They create shell organizations that claim to represent large 
numbers of people in their advocacy for Big Oil's priorities, when they 
really just represent the companies that can afford PR firms. They 
attack the people on the opposing side personally. They set up fake 
online profiles to infiltrate nonprofit groups. I encourage the 
American people to look at this Committee's report for a glimpse under 
the hood of the PR firm tactics.
    These tactics are not universal in the public relations industry. 
In fact, there are already signs that individuals and entire companies 
are moving away from this work. I hope the PR industry will continue to 
shun such tactics and the firms that use them.
    Until then, this Committee's investigation will continue.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Porter. I now yield to Ranking Member Moore for his 
opening statement.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE D. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair Porter. It must certainly be 
election season.
    It is an absolute disservice to the American people when 
Committee hearings and time are used solely to score political 
points, instead of working toward solutions for the problems 
that everyday people face. We have skyrocketing energy costs 
and inflation across the board, draining families' pockets. But 
we are here talking instead about public relations 
professionals doing their job, and highlighting that the 
companies that they work for, or their clients, contributed to 
the Red Cross during an emergency.
    It is unbelievable to me to what level we can stoop during 
an election season to try to highlight that giving tax credits 
for electric vehicles that you can't even buy for 18 months 
from now is somehow going to save the world, when the rhetoric 
that we have seen from the Majority be an absolute attack on 
American energy.
    In reality, this hearing is just another attempt to vilify 
this nation's most significant energy sector. And what is 
particularly concerning is that today's approach by Democrats 
threatens the exercise of First Amendment rights. Squashing 
debate simply because you don't like the opposition goes 
against our nation's core principles.
    It is costing families more and more to buy groceries, from 
eggs to the cost of bacon, to fill up our gas tanks, and keep 
the lights on at home.
    The state of California just faced the threat of rolling 
blackouts and was forced to issue a statewide grid emergency. 
And what wasn't disinformation and what wasn't rhetoric was--
about 2 or 3 months before I came on and was sworn into this 
role for my freshman term of Congress, I sat down with an 
energy sector and individuals in my state, and they said, 
``California, in a year from now, they are going to have 
rolling brownouts.'' And they showed me articles and they 
showed me data that was going to actually prove what plays out 
and what we are seeing right now in California. That is not 
disinformation. That is a crisis, an energy crisis that is 
self-caused because of rhetoric and this attempt to sort of 
squash what the energy industry is doing to build a broad 
energy portfolio, and do the right thing, and move in the right 
direction.
    Employers throughout the economy are struggling to handle 
increasing operating costs and facing impossible decisions. All 
of these folks are impacted daily by political decisions, and 
they all deserve to have a voice in the energy policy debate. 
When we elevate the voices of hardworking Americans, it paints 
a stark picture from the increasing costs of daily life in our 
country. It is getting more expensive for everyone.
    One of my constituents, a dairy producer, described how the 
cost to operate just one piece of equipment increased fivefold, 
from $500 to $2,500 a day, because of rising gas prices. His 
proposed solution is to turn on American energy. He is right. 
We should be developing our energy sources, an all-of-the-above 
approach.
    And I have never shied away from the importance of 
emissions-reducing technologies, embracing nuclear, and not 
just relying on wind and solar, because we can't. Wind and 
solar just produces brownouts. And if we don't have a baseload 
power, we will not be able to do any type of expansion of our 
energy grid.
    And, particularly, the most damaging thing we have seen 
with the Biden administration is they hamper our energy. It is 
taking 17 months to hold an onshore lease sale and they are 
failing to complete a single sale for offshore drilling.
    Sadly, my constituent's story is not unique, and voters 
deserve to understand the devastating impacts misguided 
policies can have before deciding whether or not to implement 
them.
    Ms. Amy Cooke joins us today from the John Locke 
Foundation, and she can tell us how important it is to provide 
an outlet for Americans to share their stories and about their 
employment in the energy and gas industry, the industry's 
support for local fire stations, or the Red Cross, or how 
affordable energy factors into business decisions.
    When anti-fracking measures were introduced in Colorado, 
voters needed to know how these policies would impact their 
neighbors' livelihoods and their own pocketbooks, which is all 
playing out. Denying such voices would have had devastating 
consequences. The ability to exercise political speech ensures 
all viewpoints are represented in policy debates. The Supreme 
Court goes to great lengths to protect speech, especially 
speech related to public issues.
    It is clear to me that the ongoing energy crisis and 
development of our domestic resources are public issues of 
great importance to American families. This Committee should be 
wary of any attempt to stifle the exercise of free speech, 
regardless of whether or not the Majority agrees with the 
viewpoint. The American people deserve better than a hearing 
intended to chill speech or salvage a botched investigation.
    What we should be doing instead--to begin, this Committee 
should use this time examining how best to pursue an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. With a diverse energy portfolio, all 
sources of the energy play a role: wind, solar, nuclear, 
hydropower, oil, and natural gas. The practical implications of 
this approach are that we continue to harness the innovative 
spirit of Americans to create technologies and the public 
retains access to affordable and reliable energy. Our nation 
has the ability to do this, and it is time that we capitalize 
on these abilities, regain independence, and lower costs for 
the American people.
    With that, I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Blake D. Moore, a Representative in 
                    Congress from the State of Utah
    Thank you, Chair Porter. It must certainly be election season. It 
is an absolute disservice to the American people when Committee 
hearings and time are used solely to score political points, instead of 
working toward solutions for the problems that everyday people face. We 
have skyrocketing energy costs and inflation across the board, draining 
families' pockets. But we are here talking instead about public 
relations professionals doing their job, and highlighting that their 
companies that they work for, or their clients, contributed to the Red 
Cross during an emergency.
    It is unbelievable to me to what level we can stoop during an 
election season to try to highlight that giving tax credits for 
electric vehicles that you can't even buy for 18 months from now is 
somehow going to save the world, when the rhetoric that we have seen 
from the majority be an absolute attack on American energy.
    In reality, this hearing is just another attempt to vilify this 
Nation's most significant energy sector. And what is particularly 
concerning is that today's approach by Democrats threatens the exercise 
of First Amendment rights. Squashing debate simply because you don't 
like the opposition goes against our Nation's core principles.
    It is costing families more and more to buy groceries, from eggs to 
the cost of bacon, to fill up our gas tanks, and keep the lights on at 
home.
    The State of California just faced the threat of rolling blackouts 
and was forced to issue a statewide grid emergency. And what wasn't 
disinformation and what wasn't rhetoric was--about 2 or 3 months before 
I came on and was sworn into this role for my freshman term of 
Congress, I sat down with an energy sector and individuals in my State, 
and they said, ``California, in a year from now, they are going to have 
rolling brownouts.'' And they showed me articles and they showed me 
data that was going to actually prove what plays out and what we are 
seeing right now in California. That is not disinformation. That is a 
crisis, an energy crisis that is self-caused because of rhetoric and 
this attempt to sort of squash what the energy industry is doing to 
build a broad energy portfolio, and do the right thing, and move in the 
right direction.
    Employers throughout the economy are struggling to handle 
increasing operating costs and facing impossible decisions. All of 
these folks are impacted daily by political decisions, and they all 
deserve to have a voice in the energy policy debate. When we elevate 
the voices of hardworking Americans, it paints a stark picture from the 
increasing costs of daily life in our country. It is getting more 
expensive for everyone.
    One of my constituents, a dairy producer, described how the cost to 
operate just one piece of equipment increased fivefold, from $500 to 
$2,500 a day, because of rising gas prices. His proposed solution is to 
turn on American energy. He is right. We should be developing our 
energy sources, an all-of-the-above approach.
    And I have never shied away from the importance of emissions-
reducing technologies, embracing nuclear, and not just relying on wind 
and solar because we can't. Wind and solar just produces brownouts. And 
if we don't have a baseload power, we will not be able to do any type 
of expansion of our energy grid.
    And particularly, the most damaging thing we have seen with the 
Biden administration is they hamper our energy, and it is taking 17 
months to hold an onshore lease sale, and failing to complete a single 
sale for offshore drilling.
    Sadly, my constituent's story is not unique, and voters deserve to 
understand the devastating impacts misguided policies can have before 
deciding whether or not to implement them.
    Ms. Amy Cooke joins us today from the John Locke Foundation, and 
can tell us how important it is for--how important it is to provide an 
outlet for Americans to share their stories and about their employment 
in the energy and gas industry, the industry's support for local fire 
stations, or the Red Cross, or how affordable energy factors into 
business decisions.
    When anti-fracking measures were introduced in Colorado, voters 
needed to know how these policies would impact their neighbors' 
livelihoods and their own pocketbooks, which is all playing out. 
Denying such voices would have had devastating consequences. The 
ability to exercise political speech ensures all viewpoints are 
represented in policy debates. The Supreme Court goes to great lengths 
to protect speech, especially speech related to public issues.
    It is clear to me that the ongoing energy crisis and development of 
our domestic resources are public issues of great importance to 
American families. This Committee should be wary of any attempt to 
stifle the exercise of free speech, regardless of whether or not the 
majority agrees with the viewpoint. The American people deserve better 
than a hearing intended to chill speech or salvage a botched 
investigation.
    What we should be doing instead--to begin, this Committee should 
use this time examining how best to pursue an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy. With a diverse energy portfolio, all sources of the energy 
play a role: wind, solar, nuclear, hydropower, oil, and natural gas. 
The practical implications of this approach are that we continue to 
harness the innovative spirit of Americans to create technologies, the 
public retains access to affordable and reliable energy. Our Nation has 
the ability to do this, and it is time that we capitalize on these 
abilities, regain independence, and lower costs for the American 
people.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Porter. Thank you, Ranking Member Moore. Now I would 
like to turn to our witness panel.
    Before introducing the witnesses, I will remind them that 
they are encouraged to participate in the Witness Diversity 
Survey created by the Congressional Office of Diversity and 
Inclusion. Witnesses may refer to their hearing invitation 
materials for further information.
    Let me remind the witnesses that, under our Committee 
Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but 
that their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    When you begin, the timer will begin, and it will turn 
orange when you have 1 minute remaining. I recommend that 
Members joining remotely pin the timer so that it remains 
visible.
    After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute 
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
    I will allow the entire panel to testify before questioning 
the witnesses begins.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Christine Arena, Founder and 
CEO of Generous Ventures, Inc.

    STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE ARENA, FOUNDER AND CEO, GENEROUS 
           VENTURES, INC., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Arena. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Chair Porter, 
Ranking Member Moore, and members of the Committee. My name is 
Christine Arena. I am a 20-year communications industry 
professional and also an author and researcher on greenwashing. 
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the 
role of PR firms in preventing climate action.
    I come to this subject as a marketing practitioner and 
advocate for change inside my industry. The link between 
misleading communications and climate policy obstruction is 
well documented. This year, the IPCC identified rhetoric and 
misinformation and corporate advertisement and brand building 
strategies from vested interests as primary barriers to climate 
action. Much research on the communications techniques used by 
those vested interests to mislead the public has been published 
by institutions including Harvard, George Mason, the Union of 
Concerned Scientists, and many others. Thirteen lawsuits have 
been filed against U.S. fossil fuel companies based on consumer 
messaging that some of our country's top lawmakers consider to 
be deceptive and even unlawful.
    These ongoing efforts to expose the communications 
architecture behind climate policy obstruction are not about 
demonizing an industry or playing politics. They are about 
revealing the truth and protecting lives.
    My written statement illustrates a surge in pro-climate PR 
and ad messaging that sharply conflicts with corporate lobbying 
and investment strategies on climate change. It details how 
disinformation is becoming both more prevalent and more 
nuanced.
    Until now, the PR firms most responsible for this work have 
escaped scrutiny. The cloak of client confidentiality and 
privilege provides an effective shield, and PR executives have 
flatly denied wrongdoing. But new analysis, including the paper 
``The Role of Public Relations Firms in Climate Change 
Politics'' by Brown University's Robert Brulle and Carter 
Werthman, reveals some of the central players and key methods 
used to block climate action.
    These methods include: (1) corporate image promotion, 
including greenwashing or corporate advertising that produces 
false positive perceptions of a company or industry's 
environmental performance; (2) third-party mobilization, 
including efforts to simulate the appearance of citizen support 
for a corporate position through the use of proxies or 
Astroturf groups; and (3) de-legitimization of the opposition, 
including more divisive efforts to monitor, surveil, discredit, 
distract, or intimidate individuals and groups that oppose 
industry interests.
    Although the first strategy is most common, my written 
statement includes recent examples of how the fossil fuel 
industry has used all three prongs to attack national and local 
policy measures, including its efforts to attack environmental 
regulations following the Ukraine invasion and the $31 million 
campaign to crush Colorado's Prop 112.
    Like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry has 
always relied on public relations to advocate for its 
interests. But what is new is the intensity of its pursuits, 
the complexity of its operations, and the vast resources it 
deploys to bulldoze regulatory obstacles in its path.
    Ordinary citizens possess neither the specialized knowledge 
needed to detect the myriad of factual omissions and 
distortions included in greenwashed ads, nor the financial 
resources needed to make their voices heard over the industry's 
extensive lobbying and public relations efforts. By employing 
disinformation strategies and tactics, certain PR firms are 
hindering an informed populace from participating in a robust 
national climate conversation and corresponding climate action.
    At current levels, climate disinformation is not merely an 
ethical problem. It causes harm to individuals, society, and 
democracy, which is why accountability is so urgent. Unfettered 
greenwash will only result in the continued growth and spread 
of knowingly false claims.
    I am grateful to so many of my communications industry 
colleagues for rallying together now to elevate standards and 
practices, and to the social scientists who have given us the 
applicable research and frameworks needed to do so. I humbly 
ask this Committee to address these issues with similar 
resolve. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Arena follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Christine Arena, CEO and Founder, Generous 
               Ventures, Inc., San Francisco, California
I. Introduction

    Chairman Grijalva, Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and members 
of the Committee, my name is Christine Arena. I am a twenty-year 
communications industry professional specializing in sustainability and 
social-impact campaigns. I am also an author and researcher on 
greenwashing. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 
about the role of public relations firms in preventing action on 
climate change. I come to this subject as a marketing practitioner and 
advocate for change inside my industry.
II. The Context

    For decades, scientists, researchers, and journalists have 
carefully monitored the fossil fuel industry's public relations and 
lobbying efforts pertaining to climate change. Dozens of peer-reviewed 
papers have been published on the subjects of climate disinformation 
and greenwash, by institutions including the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, and Brown, Harvard, Yale, George Mason, and Stanford 
universities, among others. Multiple efforts to catalog and archive 
tens of thousands of documents related to the fossil fuel industry's 
influence on climate science research and environmental regulation are 
underway.\1\ Thirteen lawsuits have been filed against fossil fuel 
companies--by cities and states including Baltimore, Massachusetts, 
Virginia, and Hawaii--on the basis of consumer-facing messaging that 
some of our country's top lawmakers consider to be so misleading that 
it is unlawful.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Fossil Fuel Industry Documents, https://
www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/fossilfuel/; The Lie-brary, https://
climateintegrity.org/lie-brary; and Kathy Mulvey and Seth Shulman ``The 
Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal 
Decades of Corporate Disinformation,'' Union of Concerned Scientists 
(July 2015), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/
The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf.
    \2\ Ben Franta, ``Climate Litigation Rising: Hotspots to Watch,'' 
Trends: American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and 
Resources 53, no. 3 (January/February 2022), https://
www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/
trends/2021-2022/january-february-2022/climate-litigation-rising/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These ongoing efforts to illustrate the vast communications 
architecture behind climate policy obstruction are not about demonizing 
an industry or playing politics. They are about revealing the truth and 
protecting lives.
    In her complaint against ExxonMobil, Massachusetts Attorney General 
Maura Healey alleges that the company launched an effort, ``reminiscent 
of the tobacco industry's long denial campaign about the dangerous 
effects of cigarettes,'' to deceive consumers and investors about 
climate change. She argues that both the company's misleading 
statements to consumers and investors about its fossil fuel products 
and its failure to disclose that the products themselves are disrupting 
the climate ``are particularly deceptive given the stark contrast 
between the company's long internal knowledge of the role its fossil 
fuel products play in causing climate change and the extensive 
marketing statements in which the company promotes the purported 
environmental benefits of those same products.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Complaint: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil 
Corporation, October 24, 2019: 153-56, https://www.mass.gov/files/
documents/2019/10/24/Complaint%20%20Comm.%20v.%20 
Exxon%20Mobil%20Corporation%20-%2010-24-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Her complaint further alleges that ExxonMobil's advertising and 
public relations messaging deceptively positions the company as an 
environmental steward while it is actually massively ramping up fossil 
fuel production and spending only a small portion of revenues on 
developing clean energy. She contends that ExxonMobil's 
misrepresentations and failures to disclose are ``unlawful'' and have 
delayed the needed transition to clean energy, making existential 
climate-driven threats to local, national, and global economies, from 
severe droughts and floods to infrastructure failures, with more likely 
to occur.
    Disinformation is about much more than the communications of a 
single corporation. The correlation between deliberately misleading 
public relations and advertising messaging, and climate policy 
obstruction, is widely documented worldwide. In April 2022, the United 
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--a body 
comprised of more than 270 researchers from 67 countries around the 
world--released a report addressing climate mitigation strategies. In 
the report, the IPCC stated that ``vested interests have generated 
rhetoric and misinformation that undermines climate science and 
disregards risk and urgency.'' \4\ It warned of ``corporate 
advertisement and brand-building strategies that may also attempt to 
deflect corporate responsibility to individuals or aim to appropriate 
climate-care sentiments in their own brand-building.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. 
Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/
ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf.
    \5\ IPCC, 2022, TS-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IPCC report also noted that the greatest barrier to achieving 
the ambitious emissions cuts that are required in order to ward off the 
worst climate change impacts is not technological in nature, but social 
and political. The missing ingredient for climate action globally and 
in the United States is political will. The communications and lobbying 
activities of a powerful minority, whom the IPCC calls the ``vested 
interests,'' are in turn strategically focused on disrupting that will.
    We are caught in an unrelenting cycle: The worse the climate crisis 
gets, the faster renewable energy scales, the harder vested industry 
interests push back against progress. New empirical analyses of 
greenwashing and climate disinformation are constantly emerging in the 
wake of an inundation of fossil fuel-industry public relations and 
advertising messaging across social media platforms and news websites. 
It is increasingly difficult to log into Facebook or Twitter, or the 
New York Times or Fox News online, without seeing one of the fossil 
fuel industry's misleading ads or posts.
    ``Information pollution,'' or a flood of misleading content, 
continues to circulate in the public sphere, as neither fossil fuel 
marketers, nor their public relations, advertising, or media partners, 
are financially incentivized to stop it (see fig. 1).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsIn addition to increasing in volume, misleading fossil fuel 
advertising and public relations messaging has also grown more complex. 
Fossil fuel marketers have shifted from denying or minimizing the 
science behind climate change to falsely suggesting that oil and gas 
are a central part of the climate-solutions mix. Almost all green-
themed fossil fuel ads contain factual omissions and distortions, and 
many also contain climate delay frames, or common discourses that 
justify inaction or inadequate efforts.\6\ Because these omissions, 
distortions, and delay frames are more subtle and nuanced than blatant 
lies or overt climate denial, they are more difficult for consumers to 
discern (see fig. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ On omissions and distortions, see Cortie Werthman and Emily 
Rockwell, ``Beyond Climate Denial: The Public Relations Industry's Role 
in Obstructing Climate Action,'' Climate and Development Lab, November 
30, 2021, http://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/uploads/2/8/4/0/28401609/
beyond_climate_denial_-_cdl_2021_report.pdf; on climate delay frames, 
see William F. Lamb et al., ``Discourses of climate delay,'' Global 
Sustainability 3 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsAccording to a new report from research organization and think 
tank InfluenceMap, which evaluated the public relations messaging, 
advertising, lobbying, and business activities of six top oil and gas 
firms, there is a ``greenwashing epidemic'' afoot--that is, ``a 
systemic pattern of pro-climate public relations and marketing 
messaging that is deeply inconsistent with the companies' government 
policy influencing and investments strategies on climate change.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ InfluenceMap, ``Big Oil's Real Agenda on Climate Change,'' 
September 2022: 7-9, https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-s-Agenda-
on-Climate-Change-2022-19585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Across a research sample of 3,421 items of recent public 
communications analyzed from five top oil and gas companies, 60 percent 
contained at least one green claim, while only 23 percent contained 
claims promoting oil and gas. However, only 12 percent of the five 
companies' 2022 combined capital expenditure (CapEx) is forecasted to 
be dedicated to ``low-carbon'' activities.
    In Exxon's case, 65 percent of its public messaging contained a 
green claim, while just 8 percent of its capital expenditures are 
devoted to low-carbon activities.
    In Chevron's case, 49 percent of its public messaging contained a 
green claim, compared to 5 percent of its capital expenditures devoted 
to low-carbon activities.
    In BP's case, 61 percent of its public messaging contained a green 
claim, compared to 15 percent of its capital expenditures devoted to 
low-carbon activities.
    Many other studies also indicate that greenwashing is a pervasive 
problem, as strategies related to decarbonization and clean energy are 
dominated by pledges rather than concrete actions, while a continuing 
business model dependence on fossil fuels and ``insignificant and 
opaque spending'' on clean energy is widely observed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Mei Li, Gregory Trencher, and Jusen Asuka, ``The clean energy 
claims of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell: A mismatch between 
discourse, actions and investments,'' PLoS One 17, no. 2 (February 16, 
2022): e0263596, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to InfluenceMap, the prominence of pro-climate public 
communications from fossil fuel supermajors also appears to be 
misaligned with the messaging they direct at policy makers. None of the 
companies assessed have aligned their climate policy engagement 
activities with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. None disclose on 
the strategies that inform their public messaging on climate change, 
nor on the resources they dedicate to related activities. None 
mentioned the fact that overall oil and gas production appears set to 
increase up until 2026, which significantly overshoots the 
recommendations in the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions 
by 2050 Scenario.
    In response to resounding scientific consensus and stark guidelines 
issued by the industry's own trade bodies, these companies are quite 
literally turning up the gas.
    As described in the 2022 paper, ``An Integrated Framework to Assess 
Greenwashing,'' there remains not only an enormous gap between the 
words and actions of polluting companies, but also an accountability 
gap: ``The high percentage of greenwashing in advertising shows that 
companies feel sufficiently confident that they will not be held 
accountable for their claims.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Noemi Nemes et al., ``An Integrated Framework to Assess 
Greenwashing,'' Sustainability 2022, 14, no. 8: 4431, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14084431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This accountability gap is even more concerning when you consider 
the fact that much of the greenwashing and climate disinformation 
circulating in the public sphere originates not from commercial 
advertisements, but from carefully calibrated, multimillion-dollar 
public relations and lobbying activities--including sponsored content, 
social media posts, strategy memos, letters to lawmakers, talking 
points, public presentations, media tours, local events, pledges, 
sponsorships, endorsements, partnerships, and certifications--that are 
not often discernible to the target audience nor within the scope of 
national regulations.
    This brings me to the role of public relations firms, and the 
strategies and tactics some of them use to obstruct climate action on 
behalf of their clients.
III. PR Strategies and Tactics Used to Obstruct Climate Action

    Until now, public relations firms working with fossil fuel clients 
have largely escaped public scrutiny of the true extent and nature of 
their role in preventing action on climate change, largely because they 
closely guard the identity of their clients. The cloak of client 
confidentiality and client privilege provides an effective shield from 
climate accountability, particularly for firms with the deepest fossil 
fuel-industry ties; however, new social science research, investigative 
journalism, and public records shed light on the extraordinary scope 
and impact of that work.
    In their 2021 paper, ``The Role of Public Relations Firms in 
Climate Change Politics,'' Brown University researchers Dr. Robert 
Brulle and Carter Werthman reveal that a concentrated group of PR firms 
have deep relationships spanning across the oil, gas, coal, rail, and 
utility sectors, serving both corporate and trade association clients 
in each.\10\ As Brulle and Werthman's paper describes, in some cases 
relationships with fossil fuel clients amount to tens or hundreds of 
millions of dollars in agency revenues, largely stemming from projects 
intended to shape public understanding and discourse about climate 
change, and to influence climate policy decisions at local and national 
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ R.J. Brulle and C. Werthman, ``The role of public relations 
firms in climate change politics,'' Climatic Change 169, 8 (2021), 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03244-4.

    Brulle and Werthman examined the strategies and tactics that the 
most highly utilized PR firms employed in order to help advance the 
objectives of their fossil fuel clients, and found that the three most 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
common approaches are:

  1.  Corporate image promotion. Including greenwashing or corporate 
            advertising that is meant to convey a socially and 
            environmentally responsible public image, and therefore 
            uphold a company's or industry's social license to operate.

  2.  Third-party mobilization. Including the recruitment of advocates 
            that echo industry talking points, and the creation of 
            ``astroturf'' groups, or fake grassroots organizations that 
            simulate the appearance of citizen support for a corporate 
            position and appear to be led by local community members, 
            but are often run by PR firms and their corporate or trade-
            association clients.

  3.  Delegitimization of the opposition. Including more divisive 
            efforts to monitor, surveil, discredit, distract, 
            intimidate, or smear individuals and groups that oppose the 
            fossil fuel industry's entrenched positions.

    These three strategies can be executed simultaneously to great 
effect. For example, in the days surrounding Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine, the US fossil fuel industry increased its efforts to promote 
oil and gas as a patriotic solution to the war, to engage and enlist 
third-party advocates to echo misleading talking points regarding the 
reasons for high energy prices, and to attack or delegitimize 
proponents of climate policy and renewable energy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ InfluenceMap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Across an array of platforms including social media, traditional 
media, public presentations, investor calls, and direct interactions 
with policy makers, the fossil fuel industry and its third-party 
advocates framed more drilling and looser regulation as solutions to 
energy volatility; falsely claimed that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is 
a clean or green energy source; and advocated for policies that had 
tenuous connections to the global energy crisis, but were nonetheless 
favorable to the industry's policy interests.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria, ``Fossil fuel companies are 
exploiting Russia's attack on Ukraine,'' Popular Information, March 1, 
2022, https://popular.info/p/fossil-fuel-companies-are-exploiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evidence suggests that the fossil fuel industry's misleading 
narratives were greatly amplified through a combination of concentrated 
media buys and bot or false amplification activity on social media that 
quickly spread misinformation to an even wider audience. According to 
research and media organization Media Matters for America, and 
misinformation-monitoring organization Triplecheck, misinformation 
posts peaked during US climate envoy John Kerry's speech about Ukraine 
and climate change on February 21, 2022,\13\ and the top one hundred 
misinformation posts yielded 5,205,281 likes, comments, and shares 
during a two-week period in February and March (see fig. 3).\14\ During 
roughly the same time, 70 percent of climate misinformation retweets 
came from bot accounts (see fig. 4).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ John Kerry, ``Implementation Plus: Global Climate Action in 
2022,'' Remarks of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, U.S. 
Department of State, American University Cairo, Cairo, Egypt, February 
21, 2022, https://www.state.gov/special-presidential-envoy-for-climate-
john-kerry-implementation-plus-global-climate-action-in-2022/.
    \14\ Media Matters for America, ``Deep Dive: Top 100 Climate & 
Energy Misinformation Posts from September 1, 2021-March 29, 2022,'' 
April 2022, https://www.mediamatters.org/.
    \15\ Triplecheck, ``Climate Misinformation Tracker,'' March 2022.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    .epsOf equal note, Energy Citizens, the astroturf arm of the 
American Petroleum Institute (API), ran 761 ads on Facebook between 
January 26 and April 1, 2022.\16\ Although the ads included claims that 
failed AFP (Agence France-Presse) fact checks,\17\ the group received 
19.6 million impressions on the platform. By comparison, in the final 
three months of 2021, Energy Citizens ran just sixty-seven similar ads, 
which were seen six million times.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ InfluenceMap.
    \17\ Rod Lever, ``Posts mislead on factors behind US energy price 
spike,'' AFP Fact Check, March 10, 2022, https://factcheck.afp.com/
doc.afp.com.324Q7V7.
    \18\ InfluenceMap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The US oil and gas sector has always pushed for policies that allow 
for new fossil fuel expansion, and against policies that would reduce 
demand. But what has changed recently is the intensity of the 
industry's pursuits, and the vast resources it deploys through public 
relations and lobbying efforts meant to crush potential regulatory 
obstacles in its path. While the sector engages in greenwashing to 
over-index its reputation on relatively small green commitments, it 
uses brute financial force to kill off sustainability initiatives at 
state and local levels.
IV. PR-Led Efforts to Obstruct Climate Action at Local and State Levels

    A similar scene has played itself out over and over in communities 
across America, and the story often ends the same way: Local oil and 
gas operations lead to leaks, water contamination, accidents, and 
public health problems for the communities living near the industry's 
facilities. In response, impacted residents write their 
representatives, file complaints, start petitions, and plead with state 
lawmakers, regulators, and the courts, asking for tougher safety 
restrictions. Their efforts are almost always crushed by fossil fuel-
funded groups with enough money and public relations resources to flood 
the zone with countermessaging.

    Colorado's Proposition 112 is but one example of the above.\19\ 
Backed by the local community group Colorado Rising, Prop 112 pressed 
the need for setbacks ensuring that new oil and gas wells be located a 
half mile away from occupied buildings, playgrounds, schools, 
hospitals, and drinking-water sources. But the initiative was outspent 
by a factor of more than thirty to one. According to Ballotpedia, six 
committees spent $31 million dollars on a sophisticated communications 
campaign that included direct mail, television ads, newspaper op-eds, 
public debates, and social media posts employing the industry's 
familiar three-pronged strategic approach:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Colorado Proposition 112, the Minimum Distance Requirements 
for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative, 2018, https://
www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2017-
2018/97Final.pdf.

  1.  Image promotion. Television ads, newspaper op-eds, and social 
            media posts touted the environmental virtues of ``clean 
            burning'' natural gas and the contributions of fracking to 
            Colorado's economy and environment--without mentioning the 
            potentially harmful health impacts of toxic compounds 
            associated with fracking, the community's related public-
            health complaints, the recent bout of deadly fracking-
            industry accidents, or the fact that methane is responsible 
            for five hundred thousand premature deaths annually and 30 
            percent of the rise in global temperatures since the 
            Industrial Revolution.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See David Sirota and Chase Woodruff, ``Noble Energy Pumps 
Unregulated Cash Into Fight Against 112,'' Westword, October 18, 2018, 
https://www.westword.com/news/nobel-energy-finds-way-to-pump-
unregulated-cash-into-fight-against-colorados-proposition-112-10916014; 
Doug Conarroe, ``Anti Fracking Doomsday Warnings Full of Gas,'' Daily 
Camera, October 11, 2018, https://www.dailycamera.com/2018/10/11/doug-
conarroe-anti-fracking-doomsday-warnings-full-of-gas/; on the dangers 
of fracking, see Bruce Finley, ``A dozen fires and explosions at 
Colorado oil and gas facilities in 8 months since fatal blast in 
Firestone,'' Denver Post, December 6, 2017 at 7:51 p.m., updated 
December 19, 2017, https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/06/colorado-oil-
gas-explosions-since-firestone-explosion/; on methane tracking, see 
International Energy Agency, ``Global Methane Tracker 2022,'' https://
www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022.

  2.  Third-party mobilization. The fossil fuel industry-funded PAC 
            Protect Colorado led the opposition campaign and argued the 
            setbacks would ``devastate our economy, wipe out thousands 
            of jobs, and endanger our environment.'' \21\ A study by 
            Common Sense Policy Roundtable, another fossil fuel-funded 
            group, attacked the science behind the setbacks.\22\ 
            Trusted organizations and individuals--from local hunting 
            and fishing groups to oil and gas workers--were also 
            recruited to amplify the message that unfettered fracking 
            is good for the state, especially for its economy and local 
            habitats. Paid protesters attended events in order to 
            physically disrupt Colorado Rising's engagement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Ballotpedia, ``Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance 
Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative 
(2018),'' https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_112,_ 
Minimum_Distance_Requirements_for_New_Oil,_Gas,_and_Fracking_Projects_ 
Initiative_(2018).
    \22\ The Common Sense Roundtable changed its name to the Common 
Sense Institute in June 2020.

  3.  Delegitimization of the opposition. Prop 112 was framed as ``a 
            liberal effort to drive a working-class industry--and its 
            conservative employees--out of the state for good.'' \23\ 
            Activists working at Colorado Rising reported being 
            monitored, followed, and physically harassed by the paid 
            protesters.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Julie Turkewitz and Clifford Krauss, ``In Colorado, A Bitter 
Battle Over Oil, Gas and the Environment Comes to a Head,'' New York 
Times, October 23, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/
colorado-fracking-proposition-112.html.
    \24\ Sam Brasch, ``Protests To Slow Signature Efforts: Another 
Front In Colorado's Oil And Gas Ballot Battle,'' CPR News, July 26, 
2018, https://www.cpr.org/2018/07/26/protests-to-slow-signature-
efforts-another-front-in-colorados-oil-and-gas-ballot-battle/.

    Using a similar public relations strategy and playbook to the 
tobacco industry, the Colorado oil and gas industry leveraged massive 
resources to minimize the hazards of fracking, undermine the related 
science, manufacture the appearance of grassroots support, hide behind 
trusted local sources, monitor and intimidate detractors, and 
manipulate public understanding and discourse about the true issues 
driving Prop 112.
    In a statement, an oil and gas industry spokesperson framed its 
campaign, and specifically its use of paid protesters to physically 
stalk Colorado Rising members attempting to collect petition signatures 
as, ``exercising our First Amendment rights,'' and defended such 
intimidation as ``standard practice in modern campaigns,'' where 
``monitoring opposition is important.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Brasch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Let me be clear: There is nothing standard or ethical about these 
practices. They are deceptive communications practices that mislead our 
citizenry and undermine our democracy.
    Just as ordinary citizens do not possess the specialized knowledge 
needed to detect the myriad factual omissions and distortions occurring 
in most ``green'' fossil fuel ads, they also do not have the financial 
resources required to make their voices heard over the industry's 
extensive lobbying and public relations efforts. By architecting and 
executing the strategies and tactics described above on behalf of their 
oil and gas clients, certain public relations firms are not exercising 
first amendment rights. They are not helping to ensure that business, 
government, and citizens all have a seat at the table. Rather, they are 
suppressing these outcomes. They are helping prevent an informed 
populace from participating in a robust national climate conversation, 
and corresponding climate action.
    Climate disinformation is not merely an ethical problem. At this 
scale, it arguably constitutes a calculated fraud on the public, and 
the harm caused to individuals, society, and the environment is no less 
grave than the harm caused by personal fraud. In the abstract to his 
forthcoming paper, ``Disinformation and the First Amendment,'' Barry 
University School of Law professor Wes Henricksen argues: ``If we 
continue to permit unfettered fraud on the public, the result will 
likely be the continued growth and spread of knowingly false claims to 
the public at large, further damaging public health and the 
environment, poisoning political discourse, and generating further 
attacks on democracy.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Wes Henricksen, ``Disinformation and the First Amendment: 
Fraud on the Public (2022),'' abstract, St. John's Law Review, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Addressing the Harms Caused by Misleading PR Campaigns

    The implications of climate disinformation on our country and world 
should guide the PR industry's next steps. We know that, like tobacco 
and firearms, fossil fuels are lethal products that contribute to 
almost nine million pollution-related deaths annually.\27\ We know that 
fossil fuel marketers have a demonstrable history of misleading people 
about climate change and solutions. We know that the nature and 
prevalence of climate disinformation are worsening, and that the end 
result is suppressed climate action, and its dire, inevitable 
consequences. And, finally, we know that fossil fuel marketers will 
continue to categorically deny all wrongdoing, characterizing climate 
lawsuits as ``frivolous,'' \28\ and the profound body of evidence 
against them as ``misleading and without merit.'' \29\ They will likely 
never alter course of their own volition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Karn Vohra et al., ``Global mortality from outdoor fine 
particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from 
GEOS-Chem,'' Environmental Research 195 (April 2021): 110754, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754.
    \28\ Chevron statement, quoted in David Sherfinski, ``Fossil fuel 
firms face new challenge over `greenwashing' ads,'' Reuters, June 22, 
2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fossilfuel-climate-change-
adverti/fossil-fuel-firms-face-new-challenge-over-greenwashing-ads-
idUSKCN2DZ 00B.
    \29\ Exxon statement, quoted in Matt Egan, ``Pro-fossil fuel 
Facebook ads were viewed 431 million times--in 1 year,'' CNN Business, 
August 5, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/business/facebook-
fossil-fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, the real questions for communications practitioners 
supporting fossil fuel clients, and for this Committee are: How will we 
manage these risks? How will we account for past damage done? What will 
we do to guard against future damage? When will we live up to Wes 
Henricksen's call: ``Those with the power to speak to the public have a 
responsibility to do so in good faith and without causing undue harm.'' 
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Wes Henriksen profile page, SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_ id=2642213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The need for climate accountability is urgent, and the road map for 
change is right in front of us. A majority of Americans want to see oil 
and gas companies held to account for their deceptions.\31\ A bill to 
eradicate the federal tax deduction for fossil fuel advertising has 
been introduced. Communications-industry trade bodies, including the 
Institute for Advertising Ethics, are working on new greenwashing 
standards. Thousands of marketing practitioners have signaled their 
desire to help end deceptive practices, and our country's top social 
scientists have given us the applicable research, tools, and 
frameworks.\32\ All we need to do is find the political will to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Natasha Grzincic and Anya Zoledziowski, ``45% of Americans 
Don't Believe Humans Cause Climate Change, VICE News/Guardian Poll 
Shows,'' Vice News, October 26, 2021, https://www.vice.com/en/article/
qjbd9m/vice-guardian-poll-americans-climate-change-man-made-climate-
crimes.
    \32\ Nemes et al.

    Thank you.
Acknowledgements and Disclosures

    KR Foundation funded the research and analysis upon which the 
Russia-Ukraine war-related portion of this testimony is based. I am 
currently collaborating with the Institute for Advertising Ethics, a 
501c3 nonprofit, to help develop educational resources related to 
greenwashing, including two upcoming symposiums in September and 
October 2022 discussing urgent issues and needed next steps for public 
relations and advertising practitioners. I prepared this statement, on 
my own personal time, with the assistance of Kathryn Shedrick. I 
declare no conflicts of interest.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Christine Arena, CEO and Founder, 
           Generous Ventures, Inc., San Francisco, California
              Questions Submitted by Representative Porter
    Question 1. The groups publicly registered as opposing Proposition 
112 reported spending $31 million against the Colorado ballot measure. 
$26 million of that money came from just one front group--Protect 
Colorado--which was created and funded by Anadarko Petroleum and Noble 
Energy. As a PR professional, what could a client get with such a 
quantity of money? What activities could it procure?

    Answer. A budget of $31 million for a single market campaign is 
quite extensive and buys a client the ability to elevate its interests 
far above community voices. Typically, such a budget would result in 
highly produced television advertisements amplified by large national 
and local media buys, and supplemented by social content, sponsored 
content, newspaper op-eds, events, direct mail, outreach to journalists 
in order to influence future stories, and more. While lobbying is not a 
standard public relations activity, a political PR firm could leverage 
those resources to influence state legislators and tilt the public 
narrative toward the interests of its client through third-party 
mobilization efforts.
    In the case of Protect Colorado, television advertisements had a 
lower production quality, meaning they were likely less expensive to 
produce than the higher calibre creative work we typically see produced 
for corporate or brand clients spending at this level. However, agency 
fees for strategic messaging and campaign execution--including the 
recruitment and management of third-party individuals and groups, as 
well as payments to those third parties--would be major line items in 
the budget.

    Question 2. How would you specifically define the terms 
``greenwashing,'' ``misinformation,'' ``disinformation,'' and any other 
key terms relating to the subject of this hearing?

    Answer. Greenwashing, misinformation, and disinformation are 
closely related terms, yet there are key distinguishing factors that 
set them apart, particularly in the context of fossil fuel industry 
communications.
    Greenwashing refers to messaging that produces false positive 
perceptions of a company's or industry's environmental performance. The 
hallmarks of greenwashing include a significant gap between words and 
actions--or green claims versus green investments and business 
practices--as well as the omission of facts related to the risks of 
fossil fuel products.
    For example, 65 percent of Exxon's public messaging contains a 
green claim, while just 8 percent of its capital expenditures are 
devoted to low-carbon activities. Similarly, 49 percent of Chevron's 
public messaging contains a green claim, while only 5 percent of its 
capital expenditures are devoted to low-carbon activities.\1\ Neither 
Exxon's nor Chevron's advertisements disclose the fact that the burning 
of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change, and both 
companies have been criticized by shareholders for failing to fully 
disclose methane emissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ InfluenceMap, ``Big Oil's Real Agenda on Climate Change,'' 
September 2022: 7-9, https://influencemap.org/report/Big-Oil-s-Agenda-
on-Climate-Change-2022-19585.
    \2\ Ceres, ``Chevron's investors call for improved methane 
disclosures in a near-unanimous vote,'' May 25, 2022, https://
www.ceres.org/news-center/press-releases/chevrons-investors-call-
improved-methane-disclosures-near-unanimous-vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The functional role of greenwashing is to divert attention from the 
questionable environmental records of fossil fuel companies. The 
practice is widespread as 60 percent of oil supermajor public 
communications are found to contain a green claim.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ InfluenceMap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Misinformation refers to false information that contradicts climate 
science, but that is not necessarily intentionally spread in order to 
mislead the public. Often, misinformation originates from individuals 
or groups that may be predisposed to certain cognitive biases, but that 
are not paid or incentivized to spread such false information by an 
industry entity.
    On the other hand, disinformation is false information that both 
contradicts climate science, and is intentionally spread in order to 
mislead people for profit or political gain. Disinformation often 
originates directly from fossil fuel industry groups, or from 
individuals or organizations that are funded by fossil fuel interests. 
It includes distinct messaging and tactical themes, several of which 
were discussed during the September 14th hearing.
    From a messaging perspective, disinformation includes both climate 
denial rhetoric--such as the false notion that the science of climate 
change is ``still uncertain''--as well as climate delay rhetoric--such 
as the false notions that individual consumers rather than polluting 
corporations are responsible for climate action, or that fossil fuels 
are a ``climate solution.''
    From a tactical perspective, disinformation also includes some of 
the activities described in my written testimony as well as in the 
House Natural Resources Committee Staff Hearing Report's references to 
third-party mobilization and delegitimization of the opposition 
strategies. The hiring of fake protesters, the use of proxy individuals 
or astroturf groups that fabricate community support for a corporate 
position, and the intimidation, harassment or surveillance of local 
community members are clear examples of disinformation tactics. Not 
only are false narratives effectively spread via these tactics, but the 
funding sources behind them are deliberately concealed.
    The purpose of fossil fuel industry-funded disinformation is to 
suppress the truth, manipulate public opinion, foster division, and 
obstruct climate action. As Dr. Melissa Aronczyk mentioned in her oral 
statement, these disinformation tactics are carried out by certain PR 
firms, and ``they are not publicized, they are not transparent, and 
they are not regulated.''

    Question 3. Is there anything else you would like to add for the 
hearing record?

    Answer. While greenwashing is a widespread problem, with many PR 
firms and advertising agencies producing greenwash on behalf of their 
clients, disinformation is less widespread. The disinformation tactics 
described above are utilized by a small minority of bad actors who 
represent a risk to consumers and the advertising industry.
    Advertising industry non-profits and trade bodies including the 
Institute for Advertising Ethics and the Public Relations Society of 
America clearly state: ``Advertising, public relations, marketing 
communications, news, and editorial all share a common objective of 
truth and high ethical standards in serving the public,'' \4\ and: 
``advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is 
essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed 
decision making in a democratic society.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Institute for Advertising Code of Ethics: https://
www.iaethics.org/principles-and-practices.
    \5\ Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics: https://
www.prsa.org/about/ethics/prsa-code-of-ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some advertising industry groups are engaged in a conversation 
about the risks and dangers of greenwash and disinformation, seeking to 
elevate the issue and help curb the problem. However, the most 
offending PR firms, practitioners, and fossil fuel clients are unlikely 
to alter course of their own volition. That is why enforceable 
mechanisms for accountability and disclosure around the risks of fossil 
fuel products and the funding sources behind third-party mobilization 
efforts are needed.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Dr. Melissa Aronczyk, Associate Professor for the School of 
Communications & Information at Rutgers University.

 STATEMENT OF MELISSA ARONCZYK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF 
COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, BROOKLYN, NEW 
                              YORK

    Dr. Aronczyk. Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and 
members of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 
today about the role of public relations firms in preventing 
action on climate change.
    My name is Melissa Aronczyk. I am an Associate Professor at 
Rutgers University and the co-author of the book, ``A Strategic 
Nature: Public Relations and the Politics of American 
Environmentalism,'' published by Oxford University Press 
earlier this year.
    The central finding of our research for this book is that 
the public relations industry has for several decades been a 
major actor in the strategy, planning, and execution of 
campaigns for the fossil fuel industry to influence what we 
know and how we act on environmental issues.
    I would like to make three points today.

    My first point is that public relations for fossil fuel 
companies is about much more than messaging or marketing. PR 
firms often say that they are merely facilitating or amplifying 
their clients' ideas or information. In fact, PR is not only 
communicating ideas and information, but coming up with those 
ideas and creating that information. They also create 
opportunities for that information to circulate, while actively 
downplaying or de-legitimizing information that does not 
support their strategy.
    Despite the label of ``public relations,'' PR firms target 
multiple stakeholders behind the scenes at local, state, and 
Federal levels, attempting to indirectly influence citizens, 
journalists, and policymakers. A New York Times investigation 
in 2020 revealed that the firm FTI Consulting was behind fake 
grassroots groups, including Texans for Natural Gas, the Arctic 
Energy Center, and the Main Street Investors Coalition. These 
appear as local efforts to speak out on energy issues. Rather, 
they are groups funded by oil and gas companies, manufactured 
and run by PR firms to provide the illusion of support for the 
fossil fuel industry.
    My second point today is that public relations coordinates 
strategies and distributes risk across fossil fuel sectors. PR 
firms share intelligence and coordinate strategies across 
sectors including petroleum, natural gas, chemicals and 
pesticides, and mining. They then coordinate coalitions from 
members of these sectors to collectively counter action on 
environmental problems. These strategies are not publicized, 
they are not transparent, and they are not regulated.
    PR firms often represent these coalitions in public or 
informal settings, such as congressional hearings, to minimize 
the risk to their client's reputation. Because this coordinated 
infrastructure of anti-environmental action operates behind the 
scenes, members of the public and lawmakers have no way of 
knowing if the support for fossil fuel production is real or 
manufactured.
    My third and final point today is that PR has influenced 
public opinion and policymaking on environmental problems for 
over 50 years. This is one of the most striking findings in my 
research. Industry reports from at least the early 1970s 
document how PR firms conducted pro-industry campaigns to 
downplay public health and environmental risks. Today, some of 
those same PR firms working for the same industry clients are 
using the same strategies to distort our understanding of the 
impacts of climate change.
    Evidence for the existence of these long-term PR strategies 
comes from the millions of internal corporate documents 
publicly disclosed during litigation against the tobacco 
industry in the 1990s. In those documents, we clearly see how 
instrumental the role of PR firms has been in preventing the 
public and lawmakers from acting to protect the environment.
    We have a record of compromising behavior by specific PR 
firms, with devastating effects on the health and welfare of 
the American people. But until now, the PR firms themselves 
have remained out of sight. Today's hearing allows us to 
broaden our understanding of PR firms' accountability when it 
comes to downplaying the threat of climate change and the role 
of their clients in causing it. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Aronczyk follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Melissa M. Aronczyk, PhD Associate Professor, 
       School of Communication & Information, Rutgers University
    Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and members of the U.S. House 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the 
role of public relations firms in preventing action on climate change.
    My name is Melissa Aronczyk. I am an associate professor at Rutgers 
University in the School of Communication & Information. I am the co-
author of a book titled, A Strategic Nature: Public Relations and the 
Politics of American Environmentalism, published by Oxford University 
Press in January of this year.\1\ The central finding of our research 
for this book is that the public relations industry has, for several 
decades, been a major actor in the strategy, planning, and execution of 
campaigns to influence public opinion and policymaking around 
environmental issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Melissa Aronczyk and Maria I. Espinoza, A Strategic Nature: 
Public Relations and the Politics of American Environmentalism. New 
York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed the history of American public relations can be seen as a 
history of battles over how to control high-stakes environmental 
problems. It began in the early twentieth century, when monopoly 
companies in environmentally compromising industries like rail, steel 
and coal faced opposition from Americans worried about their size and 
power. Corporate public relations emerged from this concern, charged 
with a mission to restore the public image of these companies.\2\ Many 
pre-World War II public relations campaigns focused on downplaying the 
environmental harms caused by corporations in their communities such as 
air and water pollution or waste management. In the second half of the 
twentieth century, as Americans became more and more aware of the 
ecological harm caused by extractive industries, corporations became 
symbols of destruction and targets for political reform.\3\ Again, 
public relations counsel played instrumental roles in restoring a 
positive reputation to companies and their activities, emphasizing 
their contributions to society and downplaying their harmful 
environmental impact in public, in the courts, and in government 
forums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Roland Marchand, Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of 
Public Relations and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business. 
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
    \3\ David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of 
Business in America. New York: Basic Books, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, many public relations firms working for fossil fuel 
interests actively prevent public awareness and government action on 
climate change. And they are using many of the same strategies they 
developed decades ago.
    To understand how these strategies have been developed and 
executed, I examined company and trade association archives, 
congressional hearing transcripts, professional journals, and industry 
reports. My co-author and I conducted approximately 75 one-on-one 
interviews with public relations counselors, industry representatives, 
strategic communications experts, government representatives, and 
environmental advocates; and attended industry and professional 
association events. My statement is drawn from this material.
    I would like to make three major points about the role of public 
relations firms in preventing action on climate change.
1. Public relations for fossil fuel companies is about much more than 
        messaging or marketing.

    PR firms working for fossil fuel interests act in many roles and do 
much more than merely communicate their clients' intentions to the 
public in media campaigns such as advertisements or commercials. Over 
the last five decades, PR firms representing fossil fuel clients have 
also been responsible for tasks such as planning and hosting public 
events for clients and their supporters; monitoring and countering 
legislative and regulatory attempts to control environmental problems; 
creating pro-industry coalitions and front groups to give the 
appearance of multiple sources of support for fossil fuel production; 
and surveilling and delegitimizing groups and organizations that 
support action on environmental and health problems including climate 
change.
    Public relations is not just about marketing or advertising. My 
research into PR firms working for fossil fuel companies shows that 
they engage in strategic and long-term planning, provide ongoing 
counseling and representation, and conduct opposition research and 
targeting on behalf of their clients. Public relations firms often 
present themselves and their work in terms of facilitating or 
amplifying ideas or information. In fact, public relations is not only 
communicating ideas and information but coming up with those ideas and 
creating that information. They also create opportunities for that 
information to circulate, while actively downplaying information that 
does not support their strategy.
    Public relations is also not just about reaching public audiences. 
Despite the label of ``public'' relations, PR firms target multiple 
stakeholders behind the scenes at local, state and federal levels, 
including citizens, journalists and policymakers. Distinctions among 
the business of public relations, public affairs, lobbying, and 
advocacy are often not observed in practice.
    Another reason that public relations is such a broad system of 
influence has to do with the kinds of tactics it uses. For instance, 
so-called ``astroturf'' lobbying is a practice whereby public relations 
counselors manufacture the illusion of grassroots support, sometimes by 
mobilizing and managing local constituencies that are sponsored and 
funded by the PR firm's fossil fuel clients. The PR firm then uses 
these constituencies to participate in media campaigns, on-the-ground 
events, and public policy forums.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Edward T. Walker, Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs 
Consultants in American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A New York Times investigation in 2020 revealed an instance of 
astroturf lobbying in the fossil fuel industry. The New York Times 
found that the PR firm FTI Consulting was behind the grassroots groups 
Texans for Natural Gas, the Arctic Energy Center, and the Main Street 
Investors Coalition. These appear as ``separate efforts to amplify 
local voices or speak up for local people''; but rather they are ``part 
of a network of corporate influence campaigns designed, staffed and at 
times run by FTI Consulting, hired by some of the largest oil and gas 
companies in the world to help them promote fossil fuels.''
    In sum, public relations firms working for fossil fuel companies 
can engage in a broad spectrum of activities with considerable 
influence in the public and political sphere.
2. Public relations for fossil fuel companies coordinates strategies 
        and distributes risk across industries.

    Public relations plays a very important coordinating role across 
industries and sectors. Unlike trade groups, which are limited in scope 
to a single trade or sector; or chambers of commerce, which are 
restricted to their constituency, PR practitioners move freely among 
different trades, issues, and geographies. They maintain multiple 
affiliations and coordinate across them. They build expertise and 
knowledge about how environmental problems affect different industries 
and regions and transfer this knowledge across their client base.
    This flexibility allows PR firms to remain hidden in the process of 
advocacy. PR counselors can engage in intelligence-gathering about 
political action on several environmental issues and share it across 
different industries. They coordinate across multiple companies and 
sectors involved in fossil fuel production and develop broad strategies 
to counter action on environmental problems as they evolve. These 
strategies are not publicized, they are not transparent, and they are 
not regulated.
    Furthermore, public relations firms are embedded in a wide network 
of influence. They may represent not only a fossil fuel company but 
also the trade association to which that company belongs; or they may 
develop their client's strategy in tandem with industry councils or 
organizational boards that the fossil fuel company client belongs to. 
Those groups in turn will support and execute the PR strategy for 
different audiences. This allows individual companies to minimize the 
reputational and financial risk of speaking out against climate action 
in public or in formal settings such as congressional hearings. Because 
this coordinated infrastructure of anti-environmental action is 
operating behind the scenes, members of the public and lawmakers have 
no way of knowing if the campaigns operating on behalf of fossil fuels 
are real or manufactured. These activities not only reduce citizens' 
trust in the political process; they distort democratic discourse.
3. Public relations for fossil fuel companies has worked to influence 
        public opinion and policymaking around environmental problems 
        for over fifty years.

    One of the most striking findings in my research is the continuity 
of strategies developed and executed by public relations firms for 
fossil fuel industries. The playbook used by public relations firms 
today to influence public opinion and political action on climate 
change was developed at least fifty years ago. Industry reports from 
the early 1970s document how public relations firms provided so-called 
``economic education programs'' to help industry clients convey the 
value of their products to the American people. At the same time, these 
firms were engaging in such activities as: conducting opposition 
research to counter regulatory and legislative action; using key 
intelligence-gathering contacts in government agencies and other 
organizations that that influence public policy on environmental and 
energy issues; and conducting pro-industry media campaigns and public 
campaigns that downplayed the health and environmental risks of climate 
change.
    Much of the evidence for the existence of these long-term PR 
strategies comes from the millions of internal corporate documents 
publicly disclosed during litigation against the tobacco industry in 
the 1990s. The reason these documents are so relevant to today's 
hearing is reflected in the three points I have made today. Many of the 
public relations firms that created strategies for tobacco companies to 
downplay the impact of their products in the 1980s and 1990s are 
applying those same strategies now on behalf of fossil fuel clients. We 
have a record of compromising behavior by specific public relations 
firms, with devastating effects on the health and welfare of the 
American people. But until now, the PR firms themselves have remained 
out of sight. Today's hearing allows us to broaden our understanding of 
PR firms' accountability when it comes to downplaying the threat of 
climate change and the role of their clients in causing it.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Melissa Aronczyk, Associate 
                     Professor, Rutgers University
              Questions Submitted by Representative Porter
    Question 1. As a researcher, you study the ``grassroots'' groups--
commonly referred to as ``astroturf''--that PR firms help the fossil 
fuel industry assemble to oppose the policies they don't like. How 
would you describe the difference between true grassroots groups and 
astroturf groups such as these?

    Answer. Grassroots advocacy is a style of organizing and mobilizing 
groups of previously unorganized constituencies to have a voice in 
decisions that affect them. As the term ``grassroots'' suggests, this 
organizing is considered to be a ``bottom up'' approach, a ``weapon of 
the weak'' that brings ordinary citizens into the political process.\1\ 
Many analysts consider the grassroots advocacy of 1960s American 
public-interest groups to be a model for contemporary organizing to 
allow citizens to speak out and enact change on major legislative and 
regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Walker, Edward. Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants 
in American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 1970s and 1980s, business groups began emulating the tactics 
of grassroots advocacy, using public relations firms to create and 
manage top-down ``subsidized publics'' that are financed by their 
corporate clients.\2\ These subsidized publics, known today as 
``astroturf'' groups, appear as bottom-up or local citizens' 
initiatives, but use industry resources to develop ``a coherence, 
focus, and elevated profile that they would not have on their own.\3\ 
As a chief Washington lobbyist for Ford Motor Company put it, ``We've 
taken a page out of the public-interest lobby by using our local people 
to influence Senators and Congressmen.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Ibid.
    \3\ William K. Carroll, ed. Regime of Obstruction: How Corporate 
Power Blocks Energy Democracy. Edmonton, AB: AU Press, 2021, p. 199.
    \4\ Peter H. Stone, ``Learning from Nader,'' National Journal, 6 
November 1994: 1342-1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In some cases, astroturf groups are not even subsidized publics but 
are rather empty vessels. For instance, a website may promote the 
existence of a citizens' group that does not in fact exist. More often, 
astroturf groups are made up of sponsored actors. The actors may be 
either professionals (paid operatives), client employees, or ordinary 
individuals who have been mobilized by the group's efforts online or in 
person. There may also be unpaid non-affiliated individuals or groups 
who associate themselves with the astroturf group. Some professional 
public relations firms today promote their specialization in astroturf 
lobbying. The PR/lobbying firm Bonner & Associates, founded in 1984, 
was among the first to specialize exclusively in astroturf lobbying for 
corporations and trade associations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Stephen Engelberg, ``A New Breed of Hired Hands Cultivates 
Grass-Roots Anger.'' New York Times, 17 March 1993. https://
www.nytimes.com/1993/03/17/us/a-new-breed-of-hired-hands-cultivates-
grass-roots-anger.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The standard register of these groups' communication is populist 
and community-based. For example, an astroturf group sponsored by the 
American Petroleum Institute, called Energy Citizens, has as its logo, 
``Citizens Like You--Raising Their Voices.'' The populist register in 
which many of these groups and campaigns operate is effective in 
organizing unaffilated individuals and mobilizing them for political 
action. For this reason, it is important not to dismiss them merely as 
``fake'' groups but also to examine how they attempt to create cultural 
and political legitimacy for fossil fuels.
    For example, the New York Times reported on the astroturf group, 
Fueling U.S. Forward, which is sponsored by Koch Industries. This 
astroturf group hosted a gospel concert for local residents in 
Richmond, Virginia; participated in a training session for Black civil 
service employees; and offered scholarships to students at local 
schools.\6\ These are real events, with real people; but the motives 
are disingenuous, entirely oriented toward promoting fossil fuels and 
the companies that produce them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Hiroko Tabuchi, Sensing Gains Ahead under Trump, the Kochs 
Court Minorities. New York Times, 5 January 2017. https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/business/energy-environment/koch-brothers-
fossil-fuels-minorities.html?_r=0.
    See also Camille Vargas, ``Fossil Fuel Advocacy Campaign Offers 
Scholarships to African-American Students.'' The Daily Tar Heel, 6 
March 2017. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2017/03/fossil-fuel-
organization-provides-scholarships-to-rural-african-american-
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A key distinction that needs to be made is that subsidized speech 
is not free speech. The lack of transparency of so-called ``subsidized 
publics,'' that is, astroturf groups, interferes with the political 
process and the formation of public opinion.

    Question 2. How do the tactics used by PR firms and outlined 
throughout the hearing and in the Committee's report constitute climate 
disinformation? How could we improve transparency so that the public 
better understands where this information is coming from?

    Answer. Greenwashing is a prominent and highly problematic form of 
climate disinformation. Greenwashing can be defined as attempts by 
industry groups to make their products or practices seem more 
environmentally friendly than they really are. Public relations firms 
and advertising agencies have been responsible for crafting promotional 
campaigns for their fossil fuel clients that engage in greenwashing in 
the following ways (among many others):

     minimizing, omitting, and/or reframing key information 
            about firm-level or industry-level commitments to action on 
            climate change;

     downplaying or diminishing the role of the firm or 
            industry in climate change;

     widening gaps between climate-related pledges to national 
            or international climate agreements (e.g., the 2015 Paris 
            Agreement) and actual actions;

     promoting technologies or innovations to mitigate climate 
            change that are unproven or underdeveloped (e.g., not 
            scalable to industry-level needs);

     promoting ``scenarios'' for climate mitigation that 
            downplay the industry's accountability;

     creating and deploying industry-based metrics or 
            certification (i.e., voluntary regulation) while acting 
            against formal regulatory frameworks;

     creating public-private partnerships with environmental 
            groups to build brand reputation without engaging formally 
            in climate action;

     promoting alternative approaches to fossil fuel production 
            while hiding the presence of ongoing business models that 
            rely on fossil fuel production.

    Greenwashing is a particularly insidious form of climate 
disinformation because it relies on misleading or deceptive rhetorical 
tactics that obscure the causes and consequences of climate change for 
the public.
    The public relations and advertising industries are largely 
unregulated industries. This is one reason fossil fuel companies rely 
on them to create information and influence campaigns. A second reason 
is that these firms operate largely behind the scenes. Most ordinary 
citizens are unfamiliar with the workings or even the names of major 
public relations firms and advertising agencies. The lack of 
transparency is a major reason that oil and gas companies look to PR to 
help them fight their battles.
    The public and policymakers have a right to know who is behind the 
strategies, groups and campaigns that are organized and managed by 
public relations firms, ad agencies, and other third-party enablers. To 
avoid a distorting influence on the communication and understanding of 
climate change impacts, groups and campaigns funded by oil and gas 
companies should be required to disclose this funding as well as the 
names of the third parties involved in brand-building, strategy, and 
message amplification.
    PR firms are experts in the business when it comes to long-term 
planning and strategy to promote industry viewpoints. For over 50 
years, PR firms have developed strategies to deny, delay action, or sow 
doubt about climate change. They can coordinate across industry sectors 
like oil and gas, chemicals and pesticides, mining because they have 
had clients in all of those sectors. Many of the same PR firms are 
using the same strategies for the same clients 50 years later.
    Regulating the norms and practices of public relations and 
advertising for fossil-fuel clients would be one important step to 
improve transparency so that the public and policymakers understand the 
motivations behind climate change messaging. A second step would be to 
regulate what kinds of claims are allowable and which should be 
disallowed in promotional communication. Unproven technologies, 
misleading claims, or other distorted attempts to build brand 
reputation at the expense of accurate messaging should be regulated to 
limit climate disinformation.

    Question 3. In your research, you have identified deceptive 
rhetorical framing and tactics commonly used by PR firms on behalf of 
their fossil fuel clients to undermine critics. Did you observe any of 
these rhetorical tactics being used during the hearing?

    Answer. During the hearing I heard a lot of anti-climate rhetoric 
from opposing committee members. I was struck by how their rhetoric 
echoed anti-environmental frames that PR firms have used for over 50 
years to promote fossil fuel clients. They are used to undermine 
positions of support for climate action; and they have had a long-term 
effect on how the public is misinformed about the role of fossil fuels 
in American society. My co-author and I describe each of these frames 
in our book, A Strategic Nature: Public Relations and the Politics of 
American Environmentalism (Oxford University Press, 2022). I list here 
11 of the frames, with quotes taken verbatim from the hearing, for the 
record:
i. Fear.

    [In reference to a ballot initiative regarding Proposition 112 in 
Colorado]: ``Your agenda, if carried to its logical conclusion, would 
involve the people of Colorado rubbing their hands together to stay 
warm. And in the coming winter months and with natural gas prices at a 
14 year high and getting higher, they just might have to do that now.''

    ``When you have sources like wind and solar that aren't reliable in 
the sense that they're either spiky or they have times of the day when 
they when they aren't working, it makes the grid more fragile. It is 
less resilient. It is unstable. And you will see things like blackouts, 
brownouts, or in some cases, a complete failure.''

    ``I experienced the blackouts in February 2020 at a time when the 
weather conditions in Montana were about 20 below zero. And the folks 
in Texas were experiencing the same types of issues, and we witnessed 
the near collapse of the entire power grid.''

    ``If you want to see devastating consequences for the environment, 
see a grid collapse. See what that looks like when people are then 
burning whatever they can get their hands on to heat their homes or to 
cook food.''

    ``Raul. A welder. He was the son of migrant workers who worked for 
ancillary support services for the oil and gas industry. He worked with 
his two sons. It was all about opportunity, jobs, future growth for him 
and his family. If that [ballot initiative] had passed, it's likely his 
livelihood would have been shut down.
ii. Tradeoffs between the economy and the environment.

    ``A single working mom sees her electricity bills skyrocket. Her 
power is shut off. It affects her quality of life. That's a trade off. 
Are we willing to do that to our fellow citizens?''

    ``It is costing families more and more to buy groceries from eggs 
to the cost of bacon, to fill up our gas tanks and keep the lights on 
at home.''

    ``Natural gas and oil supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in 
Colorado, approximately 235,000 jobs. And your ultimate goal? To impose 
a fracking ban on our state threatens to destroy our economy and 
compromise our energy independence.''

    Speaker to witness: ``In your opinion, what would happen if the 
United States just stopped producing oil and gas, like many of these 
activist groups are clamoring for. What would happen?''
    Witness response: ``It'd be catastrophic. I'll tell you what. You 
wouldn't have this hearing today. Civilization, the economy, as we know 
it, would certainly collapse.''

    ``We're in a situation now where one fourth of all Americans--one 
fourth of all Americans in this country--are in a situation where they 
have to decide if they're going to cover groceries, if they're going to 
cover health care costs, or if they're going to pay their utility 
bills. We're seeing record inflation and it's a result of what's 
happening, this, right here. Respondents who forgo necessary expenses, 
such as medicine or food, in order to pay an energy bill.''
iii. Speaking for the public.

    ``When we elevate the voices of hardworking Americans, it paints a 
stark picture of the increasing cost of daily life in our country.''
iv. Rational vs emotional actors.

    ``Any time you hear another voice . . . even if you disagree with 
it . . . it's simply somebody in the public arena having a debate. You 
don't like those people. I get it. But that doesn't mean we don't have 
valid concerns . . . it's not disinformation just because you don't 
agree with it . . . public policy organizations like mine [the John 
Locke Foundation], all we do is provide you the information. What you 
do with it is up to you. But we provide you the information so you can 
make sound public policy decisions.''

    ``I think one thing that's important to note is that we can have 
free speech and stop the spread of disinformation if we stop with the 
grandstanding and just get to sensible policymaking.''
v. Everyday life.

    ``Think about the last two years with COVID. How many single-use 
syringes were necessary? And those come from . . . those were plastic 
that you could dispose of. That's fossil fuels. The helmet that your 
your child wears in any sports activity. I had a bike accident a couple 
of years ago. A fossil fuel-based helmet saved my life. Glasses saved 
my eyes. It's in everything. They are in everything.''
vi. Truth/Facts.

    ``American voters deserve access to the facts so they can decide 
for themselves, and our First Amendment ensures that they can.''

    ``Data doesn't lie, and the facts show that this administration's 
energy policies are pushing people into poverty, are pushing jobs 
overseas.''

    ``I recognize the importance of sharing how the daily lives of 
Americans were impacted by misguided policies. We want truth. All of us 
want truth out there.''
vii. Delay.

    ``It's been demonstrated factually that the world is going to need 
oil and gas products for decades to come, not only for our energy, but 
because of all the byproducts that are also generated by each and every 
one of these.''
viii. Domestic security.

    ``Thanks to American's innovative and entrepreneurial spirit, we've 
demonstrated we can develop our resources wisely, provide clean, safe 
power, and be energy dominant free from independence on hostile regimes 
that may threaten our national security.''

    ``We have a global . . . gas catastrophic event going on in Ukraine 
right now with Russia, the evil empire that they are. So they have to 
then go away from that, the energy there. And so they go back to coal . 
. . And I just want to help us avoid that.''

    ``Could you describe the benefits of having oil and gas produced 
here in the United States with the highest environmental standards and 
labor standards, rather than imported countries like Russia, Iran and 
Venezuela?''
ix. Not me but you.

    ``When the Majority of this Committee starts trying to intimidate 
people into not bragging about their products . . . '' [vs. fossil fuel 
companies intimidating environmental activists].

    ``Let's be clear on who's misleading the American people. The Biden 
administration, acting as though their energy strategies are resulting 
in lower emissions and addressing climate change'' [vs. fossil fuel 
companies misleading consumers].
x. Free speech.

    ``. . . Today's approach by Democrats threatens the exercise of 
First Amendment rights . . . The ability to exercise political speech 
ensures all viewpoints are represented in policy debates. The Supreme 
Court goes to great lengths to protect speech, especially speech 
related to public issues . . . This committee should be wary of any 
attempt to stifle the exercise of free speech, regardless of whether or 
not the majority agrees with the viewpoint. The American people deserve 
better than a hearing intended to chill speech or salvage a botched 
investigation.''

    ``Americans, including those in the energy and environmental policy 
space, are rightfully troubled by the growing threat that their speech 
will be shut down by those who sit in politically powerful positions.''
xi. Threat of Socialism/Communism (China).

    ``Ms. Foster, your America Last Socialist Organization has 
repeatedly attempted to hit the oil and gas industry in Colorado, 
including through ballot initiatives.''

    ``Why isn't the committee issuing subpoenas for PR firms that offer 
support for the climate change lobby, like the Sierra Club, who has 
repeatedly assured us that the genocidal Chinese Communist Party, even 
while they murder millions of people in concentration camps, is 
actually quite interested in working with the Democrats' climate change 
agenda?''

    ``It would be helpful if people weren't misled about electric cars. 
They are generally more expensive. We're going to have so much lithium 
batteries that we won't know what to do with it. It's going to be a 
huge problem. We're having to buy so much from China with regard to 
rare earth metals, but you can't make a vehicle without some fossil 
fuels.''

    ``. . . as we speak here today, China is in the process of making 
fifty--50!--of the largest coal plants in the world. With no 
protections . . . They obviously are not concerned with climate change. 
They are not concerned with polluting the world. And obviously, we 
right here are not concerned with them doing that either. We have the 
cleanest coal in the world and we have witnesses here today who can't 
even determine if they would prefer natural gas over coal.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Amy O. Cooke, Chief Executive 
Officer for the John Locke Foundation.

STATEMENT OF AMY O. COOKE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOHN LOCKE 
              FOUNDATION, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

    Ms. Cooke. Chair Porter and members of the Subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and to 
provide some comments. My name is Amy Cooke. I am the CEO of 
the John Locke Foundation, a state-based free market think tank 
headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.
    Prior to joining Locke, I held various positions, including 
directing energy and environmental policy to a sister think 
tank in Colorado. I have a journalism degree from the 
University of Missouri Columbia and a master's degree in 
American history from the University of Northern Colorado.
    Love for the First Amendment drew me to journalism. Fear of 
losing it drew me to public policy. I agree with Jimmy Lai, a 
newspaper publisher currently imprisoned by the Chinese 
Government for advocating for democracy. He said, ``More 
information is freedom.'' Americans, including those in the 
energy and environmental policy space, are rightfully troubled 
by the growing threat that their speech will be shut down by 
those who sit in politically powerful positions.
    My expertise is energy policy, and what I have found in 
over a decade of energy policy research is that all debates 
distill down to trade-offs. It is the responsibility of public 
policy organizations, such as mine, to tell the truth about 
those trade-offs, putting a face on those trade-offs so that 
people, including media influencers, legislators, voters, and 
the general public have all the information they need to make 
informed public policy decisions.
    I have been on the ground working with those who have 
concerns and stories to tell regarding these trade-offs. They 
have a right to tell their story, and the public has a right to 
hear them, but they are often shut out or marginalized by 
legacy media, Big Tech, and government.
    And as an example, let's just take the regulatory space at 
the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Insiders have 
stakeholder meetings that include only themselves, not 
ratepayers. They enter into a settlement that forces ratepayers 
to pay more, greatly impacting their families and businesses. 
And that is why I got involved in a utility's carbon reduction 
plan at the PUC. A small group of businesses felt that their 
voice wasn't being heard by the very commission that is 
supposed to represent them. The barriers to entry in a 
regulatory proceeding are quite high: a challenging filing 
system, lack of affordable counsel and witnesses. And for the 
privilege of petitioning your government, it can cost hundreds 
of thousands of dollars to do so in a meaningful way.
    Another example is a ballot measure I worked on. There were 
decent, hard-working Coloradoans who wanted voters to know what 
a de facto ban on hydraulic fracturing would do to their 
livelihoods, their families, their businesses, and communities. 
We provided an outlet for people like Raul, a welder, and a 
young female firefighter, just to tell their stories. And they 
explained what the trade-off of a 2,500-foot setback would look 
like for them.
    And in a recent energy policy debate at North Carolina, we 
didn't argue about the policy of zero carbon. Instead, we 
provided expert analysis for the most efficient and reliable 
way to get there. Our report supplied the foundational building 
blocks for what ultimately became the final version of a 
bipartisan bill titled, ``Energy Solutions for North 
Carolina.''
    And at a time when we are putting increasing demands on our 
grid with electric vehicle mandates and new building codes, we 
need look no further than California and Texas to see that 
those trade-offs are not always wise. Trading reliability and 
quality power for non-dispatchable sources is detrimental to 
the grid and, more importantly, to ratepayers.
    American voters deserve access to the facts so they can 
decide for themselves, and our First Amendment ensures that 
they can.
    And while we are here having hearings to police debate of 
energy policy, real problems need to be solved. Gas prices are 
still far too high. Ratepayers are forced to pay for an 
unreliable and inferior product due to bad policy decisions 
from the past, which is really what we should be discussing.
    So, what should we be doing? Well, we should be expanding 
our energy infrastructure, encouraging domestic energy 
production, rewarding reliability and resiliency. And for a 
path to zero emissions, follow North Carolina's lead on HB 951, 
and, most importantly, creating an atmosphere that respects the 
First Amendment and fosters civil debate.
    In closing, there is really good news about energy. We 
don't have to choose between a clean environment and quality of 
life. Thanks to Americans' innovative and entrepreneurial 
spirit, we have demonstrated we can develop our resources 
wisely, provide clean, safe power and be energy dominant, free 
from independence on hostile regimes that may threaten our 
national security.
    I trust Americans to put good policy ahead of partisan 
ideology. Thank you so much.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cooke follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Amy Oliver Cooke, CEO, The John Locke Foundation
    Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and 
provide comments.
    I'd like to open with a quote from The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu: 
``My father used to say, `Don't raise your voice, improve your 
argument.' ''
    My name is Amy Cooke. Since January 2020, I've been the CEO of the 
John Locke Foundation, a state-based, free market think tank 
headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. Founded in 1990, Locke 
envisions a North Carolina of responsible citizens, strong families, 
and successful communities committed to individual liberty and limited, 
constitutional government.
    Prior to joining Locke, I held various positions, including 
directing energy and environmental policy, at a sister think tank in 
Colorado, the Independence Institute, headquartered in Denver. I have a 
journalism degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a 
master's degree in American history from the University of Northern 
Colorado.
    My passion and respect for the First Amendment are what drew me to 
journalism. Fear of losing it drew me to public policy. ``More 
information is freedom,'' said Jimmy Lai, a newspaper publisher 
currently imprisoned by the Chinese government for advocating for 
democracy. Less information is tyranny.
    Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, 
freedom of the press, and freedom to petition the government aren't 
just quaint phrases. They are the five freedoms enshrined in the First 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They constitute the cornerstone of 
our republic.
    The First Amendment is to the powerful what freedom is to would-be 
tyrants. It is a life-saving vaccine that helps shield a republic from 
succumbing to despots. Speaking truth to power and challenging the 
power structure have been crucial to every single civil rights 
advancement in our country.
    In a recent interview, former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser 
warned, ``For people who today claim to be passionate about social 
justice, to establish free speech as an enemy is suicidal.'' If the 
First Amendment doesn't apply to everybody, then it doesn't apply to 
anybody.
    The speech we dislike the most is the speech that should be most 
protected. That especially includes public policy debates about how to 
solve today's most pressing problems. I offer these words as a 
foundation for my opening remarks and written testimony. Americans, 
including those in the energy and environmental policy space, are 
rightfully troubled by the growing threat that their speech will be 
shut down by those who sit in politically powerful positions.
    My expertise is in energy policy. What I've found in over a decade 
of energy policy research is that all debates distill down to 
tradeoffs. It is the responsibility of public policy organizations, 
such as mine, to tell the truth about those tradeoffs, putting a face 
on those tradeoffs so that people, including media influencers, 
legislators, voters, and the general public, have all the information 
they need to make informed public policy decisions.
    I've been on the ground working with those who have concerns and 
stories to tell regarding those tradeoffs. They have a right to tell 
their story, and the public has the right to hear them, but they're 
often shut out or marginalized by the information-industrial complex 
that includes legacy media, big tech, and government.
    As an example, let's take the regulatory space at the Colorado 
Public Utilities Commission. It's the playground of corporate lawyers, 
unelected bureaucrats, and well-funded environmental groups. They have 
``stakeholder'' meetings that include only themselves. Then they issue 
press statements slapping each other on the back for their hard work 
securing a ``settlement'' that forces ratepayers, who weren't at the 
table because they aren't ``stakeholders,'' to pay more for what was 
going to be an inferior product that could greatly impact their 
families and businesses. That's why I got involved in a utility's 
carbon reduction plan at PUC. A group of small businesses felt their 
voice wasn't being heard by the very commission that is supposed to 
represent them.
    The PUC does not put out the welcome mat for new players. In fact, 
the barriers to entry in a regulatory proceeding are quite high 
including: an antiquated filing system, lack of affordable local 
counsel, and the need for highly skilled, and usually very expensive, 
expert witnesses. Even if a party is fully prepared to enter into a 
proceeding, intervention is largely discretionary. Only by first 
persuading the PUC that intervention should be permitted is a party 
granted an audience and a voice in the process. For the privilege of 
petitioning your government, it can cost hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to do it in a meaningful way.
    Another example is a ballot measure I worked on in 2018. I headed 
up an issue committee Spirit of Colorado in opposition to Proposition 
112 that would have put oil and gas development off limits in a high 
percentage of private land in Colorado. Opposition to it was strong and 
bipartisan, including then Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jared Polis 
who said it would ``all but ban fracking in Colorado.'' Democrat State 
Representative Paul Rosenthal said, the measure ``goes too far, too 
quickly. . .. It would basically ban the oil and gas industry from 
Colorado.''
    There were decent, hardworking Coloradans across the political 
spectrum who wanted voters to know what a de facto ban on hydraulic 
fracturing would do to their livelihoods, their families, their 
businesses, and communities. We provided an outlet for people like a 
welder named Raul, small business owner Mark Weinmaster, a young female 
firefighter from a rural community, moms, and others to tell their 
stories. They explained what the tradeoff of a 2,500-foot setback would 
look like for them. In November, voters rejected Proposition 112 55 
percent to 45 percent because it was bad public policy for Colorado. 
Many of those same voters also elected Jared Polis to be their 
Governor.
    In a recent energy policy debate in North Carolina, we didn't argue 
about the policy goal of zero carbon from the electricity production 
and distribution industry. Instead, we provided expert analysis for the 
most efficient and reliable way to get there. Our report supplied the 
foundational building blocks for what ultimately became the final 
version of a bipartisan bill H.B. 951 titled Energy Solutions for North 
Carolina. Democrat Governor Roy Cooper signed it into law in October 
2021.
Quick (and important) Facts about H.B. 951:

     The bill mandates that reasonable steps be taken to 
            achieve a 70 percent reduction in CO2 emissions 
            by 2030 (with timing discretion given in certain 
            circumstances) and ``carbon neutrality'' by 2050 (also with 
            time discretion in certain circumstances).

     The General Assembly gives the North Carolina Utilities 
            Commission (NCUC) authority to pick the energy fuel source 
            mix and plans, through a stakeholder process, to achieve 
            the goals stated in the law.

     The law requires that the NCUC choose the least-cost and 
            most reliable options.

     The law further requires the NCUC to reevaluate its 
            plan(s) every two years to account for technological 
            advancements which may improve the least-cost and 
            reliability standards.

    At a time when we are putting increasing demands on our grid with 
electric vehicle mandates and new building codes, we need look no 
farther than California and Texas to see that their tradeoffs were not 
wise. Trading reliability and quality power for taxpayer-subsidized 
industrial wind and utility-scale solar is detrimental to the grid and, 
more importantly, to ratepayers. Electricity becomes unreliable and 
much more expensive. American voters deserve access to the facts, so 
that they can decide for themselves. Our First Amendment ensures that 
they can. I trust voters to put good policy over partisan ideology.
    So, while we sit in hearings to police the debate over energy 
policy, real problems need to be solved. Gas prices are still far too 
high. Rather than encourage domestic production, the President is 
asking OPEC to increase production. The Economist labeled the looming 
energy crisis across the Atlantic, ``Europe's winter of discontent.'' 
In California, ratepayers are forced to pay for an unreliable, inferior 
product due to bad policy decisions from the past. As a result, they 
were told to curb their electricity use to avoid rolling blackouts. In 
Denver, the utility locked some residential thermostats so ratepayers 
couldn't adjust them during peak demand.
    When a cyberattack and network disruption shut down the Colonial 
Pipeline in 2021, 70 percent of North Carolina gas stations went dry. 
It was reminiscent of the 1970s gas lines, with cars backed up for 
miles in hopes of securing a few precious gallons. It's no better if 
you have an electric vehicle, and your Governor tells you not to charge 
it because it could strain the grid.
    Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, but we don't protect it as 
if it is. We don't have redundancies nor contingency plans in place.

    The reality is we must have energy to power our modern economy. 
That includes transportation, residential, commercial and industrial. 
What should we be doing?

     Expand our energy infrastructure

     Encourage domestic energy production and development of 
            rare earth minerals

     Expand our energy infrastructure and encourage expansion 
            with our allies

     Reward reliability and resiliency

     Stop rewarding non-dispatchable, unreliable energy sources 
            that threaten grid stability

     Consider a reliability risk premium or a cost of failure. 
            If a generator cannot guarantee its capacity factor, 
            investors or shareholders should be held accountable.

     For a path to zero emissions, follow North Carolina's lead 
            on HB 951. Like Colorado, our Utilities Commission has 
            procedural flaws and regulatory barriers to entry, but the 
            bill is a good policy model for reason and debate, for 
            mutual respect and reasonable compromise

     Create an atmosphere that respects the First Amendment and 
            fosters civil debate

     Lower barriers to entry in the regulatory arena, encourage 
            access so all voices can be heard in the energy space

    In closing, there is good news about energy. It doesn't have to be 
an either-or choice. We don't have to choose between a clean 
environment and our quality of life. Thanks to Americans' innovative 
and entrepreneurial spirit, we've greatly reduced our carbon emissions 
while still allowing for human flourishing. We've demonstrated that we 
can develop our resources wisely, provide clean, safe power and be 
energy dominant, free from dependence on hostile regimes that may 
threaten our national security. I've included links to a number of 
resources to assist with the development of such an approach, and, of 
course, I, or any member of my team is always available and willing to 
help.
    We shouldn't be afraid of different ideas. We don't have to raise 
our voices or shut down speech with which we disagree. Rather than 
blame some other entity or demand government intervention, let's follow 
the advice of Desmond Tutu's father and improve our own arguments. It 
will make all of us and our republic stronger in the long run.

    For more information on any of the information presented above, I 
suggest the following information:

  How much would you spend on electricity for tens of thousands 
of jobs lost?

https://www.johnlocke.org/how-much-more-would-you-spend-on-electricity-
for-tens-of-thousands-of-jobs-lost/

  Big Blow

https://www.johnlocke.org/research/big-blow-offshore-wind-powers-
devastating-costs-and-impacts-on-north-carolina/

  Energy Crossroads

https://www.johnlocke.org/research/energy-crossroads/

  Analysis of Duke Energy's Carolinas Carbon Plan and a Least 
Cost Decarbonization Alternative

https://www.johnlocke.org/research/analysis-of-duke-energys-carolinas-
carbon-plan-and-a-least-cost-decarbonization-alternative/

  Implementation of NC H.B. 951, Energy Solutions for North 
Carolina

https://www.johnlocke.org/implementation-of-h-b-951-whats-on-the-road-
ahead% EF%BF%BC/

  Can House Bill 951 keep winter from coming to North Carolina?

https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/can-house-bill-951-keep-winter-
from-coming-to-north-carolina/

  Brad Muller testimony

https://starw1.ncuc.gov/NCUC/ViewFile.aspx?Id=54fbaba6-76d3-4367-abe2-
ee3f8 fade516

  Coalition of Ratepayers Case Study

https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/CoRP_Case_Study_v2_a.pdf

  Colonial Pipeline Shutdown: Outages by State

https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/colonial-pipeline-shutdown-fuel-outages-by-
state

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Porter. The Chair now recognizes Anne Lee Foster, 
former Director of Communication and Community Engagement for 
Colorado Rising.

STATEMENT OF ANNE LEE FOSTER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATION 
  AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, COLORADO RISING, PAONIA, COLORADO

    Ms. Foster. Chair Porter, Ranking Member Moore, and members 
of the Committee, my name is Anne Lee Foster and I was a ballot 
initiative proponent of Prop 112. This was a role I never 
expected to find myself in.
    Before moving to Colorado, I was working for a university 
art museum in Virginia. Although I was working a wonderful job, 
I was living in my hometown and wanted to make a big change, so 
I moved. I was looking forward to the clear blue skies. But 
when I arrived, that was not the reality. The Boulder-Denver 
area has an F air quality rating, according to the American 
Lung Association, largely due to fracking.
    I learned of the many studies demonstrating the negative 
health impacts of living near fracking and heard countless 
stories of children suffering from nosebleeds, asthma, and 
coughing episodes. I learned of a ballot initiative to limit 
fracking and volunteered for the campaign organized by 
concerned parents, school teachers, and impacted citizens.
    I was harassed starting the first week of signature 
gathering, when men carrying signs targeted me, yelling at 
potential signers, and standing between the individual and 
myself. This was statewide and persisted throughout the 4 
months we gathered signatures. There are many accounts of 
particularly women being followed around by multiple protesters 
for extended periods. Many folks reported being intimidated and 
scared.
    A document was leaked to our campaign from an employee of 
Anadarko, a fracking company, instructing employees to text the 
location of our signature gatherers, if they saw them. Colorado 
Public Radio texted the numbers, and protesters showed up 
within 10 to 15 minutes each time.
    We hired a professional signature-gathering firm that said 
they had dealt with opposition tactics and with Pac/West. The 
firm quickly started billing us at much higher rates than 
agreed to and producing significantly fewer signatures. The 
reason cited was harassment from protesters. Several weeks into 
signature gathering, we received a call from office staff who 
said the office was closing, and the principal of their firm 
was removing signed petitions. The firm told us we would have 
to pay them another $40,000 to get the signatures back. We got 
them back when we went public with the incident.
    We contracted with two other firms after this who both quit 
early. One of the firms told volunteers he had taken payment to 
stop working with us.
    Despite these challenges, we qualified for the ballot. Two 
weeks before the election we were sued for defamation by the 
president of the first firm. The damages were based mostly on 
the allegation they had lost a contract with Pac/West. We have 
recordings of all the conversations proving the firm's 
president took signatures against our will, and the attempts to 
coerce us. The suit was withdrawn.
    I personally suffered from what I feel is stalking or 
harassment. I noticed a suspicious man at one of my signature-
gathering trainings. When turning in the signatures at the 
Secretary of State's office, I noticed that individual 
seemingly waiting for us. I told them I recognized him. I later 
received a text from an unknown number congratulating me on our 
success, identifying himself as the person I recognized at the 
Secretary of State's office, and saying he worked for a neutral 
third party. He later texted and asked me to coffee or ice 
cream.
    Later, at the Colorado State Capitol, a strange man began 
to follow me. I ducked down hallways and changed floors, but I 
couldn't shake him. He appeared at a press conference that we 
hosted and recorded it on his phone. I also saw him at a county 
commissioners hearing. He never stated who he was or why he was 
attending. I also saw him at a local coffee shop I frequented.
    I started to encounter symptoms of adrenal fatigue, 
including hair loss, unexplained weight gain, and panic 
attacks. I saw several health professionals, including a 
psychologist and therapist.
    Despite all that we endured, the strength and persistence 
of Coloradoans volunteering to protect their families and 
communities from this destructive industry was deeply 
inspiring, and something I will never forget.
    In the end, this isn't about my story or even Prop 112. It 
is about what we are all going to endure at the hands of these 
destructive industries.
    I leave you with this quote from Nathaniel Rich's book, 
Losing Earth: ``Everything is changing about the natural world, 
and everything must change about the way we conduct our lives. 
It is easy to complain that the problem is too vast and each of 
us is too small. But there is one thing that each of us can do 
ourselves in our homes, at our own pace, something easier than 
taking out the recycling or turning down the thermostat, and 
something more valuable. We can call the threats to our future 
what they are. We can call the villains villains, the heroes 
heroes, the victims victims, and ourselves complicit. We can 
realize that all this talk about the fate of the Earth has 
nothing to do with the planet's tolerance for higher 
temperatures, and everything to do with our species' tolerance 
for self-delusion. And we can understand that when we speak 
about things like fuel efficiency standards, or gasoline taxes, 
or methane flarings, or setbacks, we are speaking about nothing 
less than all we love and all that we are.''
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Foster follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Lee Foster, Former Director of Communication 
  and Community Engagement for Colorado Rising and Ballot Initiative 
                Proponent of Colorado's Proposition 112
    My name is Anne Lee Foster and I am the former Director of 
Communication and Community Engagement for Colorado Rising and one of 
two ballot initiative proponents of Proposition 112. This was an unpaid 
position and a role I never expected to find myself in.
    Before moving to Colorado in 2016, I attended Mary Baldwin 
University for Art Management and was working for a small university 
art museum in collections located in Williamsburg, Virginia. Although I 
was working a wonderful job with many benefits, I was living in my 
hometown and needed to make a big change. Right after my 29th birthday, 
I made the decision to follow my partner at the time and move to 
Boulder, Colorado.
    Having a passion for the outdoors, I was looking forward to many 
days under the clear blue skies of my new home state, but when I 
arrived I realized that was not the reality. In reality, the air was 
heavily polluted. Boulder and the Denver Metro area have an F air 
quality rating according to the American Lung Association. Studies by 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and the National 
Center for Atmospheric Research have found that about 50% of this comes 
from the fracking industry.
    While living on the front range, I learned of the many studies 
demonstrating the negative health impacts of living near fracking and 
heard countless stories of children suffering from nosebleeds, asthma 
and coughing episodes from being exposed to pollution from these sites.
    I was stunned by this and began looking into it more. Local 
governments had no power to stop massive fracking sites that were 
moving closer and closer to neighborhoods and the state agency that 
oversaw fracking was a rubberstamp operation having never denied a 
permit. I learned about efforts to bring a ballot initiative that would 
limit fracking in Colorado at a gathering of friends and I volunteered 
for a campaign organized by concerned parents, schoolteachers, and 
other impacted citizens and started off managing signature gathering 
efforts.
    In 2016, our signature gatherers dealt with strangers following 
them around in public and strongly discouraging citizens from signing 
the petitions. This effort fell short of making the ballot and we 
decided to try again in 2018 when I was chosen to be an official 
proponent of the initiative.
    I was harassed starting the very first weekend of signature 
gathering throughout the campaign and afterward. It started at Boulder 
Creek Festival my first time gathering signatures when young men 
carrying signs reading ``Save Colorado Jobs'' targeted me. What 
happened was, I would approach someone to sign my petition and they 
would yell at them to not to sign and then physically stand between me 
and the individual. This was very uncomfortable for the person trying 
to sign and resulted in most people not wanting to engage at all and 
walking away.
    This type of behavior escalated throughout the campaign and there 
are many accounts of our volunteers, particularly women, being followed 
around by multiple aggressive male protesters while gathering 
signatures for extended periods of time. Many of these women reported 
being intimidated and even frightened for their safety. These incidents 
are documented in our campaign log of harassment events and although 
that is not an exhaustive list, it shows that this kind of activity 
persisted throughout the four months we gathered signatures throughout 
the state of Colorado, primarily in Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins. 
In one account, a volunteer was followed home. The protesters were also 
known to wait outside of campaign offices and follow signature 
gatherers as they left to go to their posts.
    On one occasion, two protesters came into the Boulder campaign 
office and asked for resumes to apply to gather signatures. They were 
then seen the next day in front of the Boulder Library targeting our 
signature gathers with opposing messaging.
    When asked about the issue, the protesters were ill-informed, 
knowing very little about the details of the ballot initiative, the 
practice of fracking, or the climate crisis. When questioned, I never 
heard substantial opinions about the science, the initiative, or real 
statistics regarding impacts on the job market or economy. We did, 
however, hear the same two talking points repeatedly, ``Save Colorado's 
economy,'' and ``250,000 jobs lost.'' Additionally, many of these 
protesters were quick to present the same preprinted document, 
declaring their constitutional right to participate in this type of 
behavior.
    While signature gathering was taking place, a document was leaked 
to our campaign from an employee of Anadarko, an oil and gas producer 
in Colorado, instructing any employees of the company to text the 
location of our signature gatherers if they saw any. Sam Brasch of 
Colorado Public Radio tested the number given in the document and 
aggressive protesters showed up within 10-15 minutes each time.
    To garner enough signatures to reach the ballot, we hired a well-
known professional signature gathering firm based out of Oregon and 
signed a contract with estimates of the number of signatures they would 
collect and the cost of collection. During our first few meetings with 
this firm, they indicated that they had experience dealing with 
opposition tactics and specifically had ``dealt'' with PacWest 
Communications, a public relations firm based in Oregon with well known 
ties to the oil and gas industry operators in Colorado. However, soon 
after implementing the signature gathering efforts, the firm started 
billing Colorado Rising at much higher rates than agreed to and 
producing significantly fewer signatures. The reason they cited for 
increased costs was ``harassment from protestors''. Furthermore, there 
were many issues with the validity of the signatures they did provide.
    Several weeks into signature gathering the firm contacted Colorado 
Rising and informed us that they had to break our contract immediately 
and they no longer had our deposit to return to us. They also wanted to 
bill us another substantial amount of money over the previously quoted 
amount. Colorado Rising negotiated that the firm stays on for another 
week in order to transfer the operation over to our campaign's 
management.
    The next day, we received a call from contracted office staff with 
the firm who informed us that they had been told our signature 
gathering campaign was over and the office was closed. These staff 
shared with us that they had gone to the office and had seen the 
principal of the firm removing signed petitions and relevant paperwork 
from the office. The firm then informed us that the boxes containing 
approximately 15 thousand signatures had been taken out of state and we 
would have to pay another $40,000 to get them back. The signatures were 
eventually recovered after Colorado Rising went public with the details 
of the incident in a press conference. At that point, the firm's 
attorney called Colorado Rising's counsel to inform him the petitions 
were at a Denver Greyhound station. The campaign was still unable to 
recover them until Colorado State Representative Joe Salazar intervened 
and requested their release from Greyhound staff.
    In addition, we heard from dozens of signature gatherers, there 
were over 150 of them, that their final paychecks from the firm 
bounced, leaving them in a bad position. Many of these signature 
gatherers live in temporary housing or are officially unhoused and this 
left them in very difficult and precarious positions. Many of these 
unpaid workers filed complaints with the Colorado Department of Labor 
that were left unresolved because the firm was dissolved by its 
principals soon after the campaign ended.
    We contracted with two other firms after this to gather the 
remaining signatures. After just a few days of working with one of the 
firms, they informed us they could no longer continue working with us. 
A few weeks later the gentleman who ran that firm was seen outside of 
our signature gathering office. Two Colorado Rising volunteers 
approached him and asked what happened. He then informed them that he 
had taken payment to stop working with us.
    We had a third signature gathering firm end their relationship with 
us earlier as well, resulting in us taking on the entire statewide 
signature gathering effort ourselves because we felt we couldn't trust 
another firm.
    I personally suffered from what I feel is stalking or harassment in 
a number of other circumstances throughout this campaign. In one 
instance a gentleman in his mid to late twenties came to my signature 
gathering training and exhibited what I would call ``suspicious'' 
behavior. I made a mental note of him. When we went to turn in the 
signatures at the Secretary of State's Office I noticed this same 
individual sitting outside seemingly waiting for us. I engaged with him 
and informed him that I recognized him and he nodded at me but didn't 
verbally respond. A few weeks later I received a text from an unknown 
number congratulating me on our success in making the ballot. When I 
asked who it was he identified himself as the person I recognized at 
the SoS office, he congratulated me and called me ``kid'' and told me 
he was working for a ``neutral third party''. He then asked me out to 
coffee or ice cream which I found odd and unsettling.

    Despite, these challenges we qualified for the ballot.

    During the next phase of the campaign, there was extensive 
advertising declaring Prop 112 a ``ban'' on oil and gas development in 
Colorado. To be clear, the ballot initiative would have required a 2500 
ft setback for new oil and gas development from homes, schools, 
waterways, and other sensitive areas. There was another document leaked 
from Anadarko at this point. This document was an analysis from RS 
Energy Group which estimated the total developable land area that would 
be affected by Prop 112. The report illustrates that the industry was 
aware of the fact that this was not a full ban. You can see the 
discrepancy between actual estimated impacts and the claims they were 
making in the media about how they would be impacted. (Exhibit A)
    I found out two weeks before the election that we were being sued 
for defamation by the principal operator of the signature-gathering 
firm, the President, the person who took the boxes full of petition 
signatures, via a press notice. I was not actually served until 
election night at our election night party. The damages that were cited 
in the suit were based mostly on the allegation that the firm's 
president had lost one contract with PacWest. The case never had merit 
because we were all volunteers with the campaign and therefore 
protected by good samaritan laws and the First Amendment. I felt this 
was another form of harassment. One that lasted 1.5 years and cost 
nearly $50,000 before it was withdrawn when it was shown to be 
baseless. I am sure this committee has heard of the huge problem of 
SLAPP suits and how they chill public participation in the resolution 
of important issues such as the ones we were attempting to address. We 
had recordings of all the conversations proving the firm's president 
took the boxes containing petition signatures against our will and the 
attempts to coerce us into paying many thousands of dollars to get them 
back.
    We lost the initiative by a little less than 4.5 points but earned 
over a million votes, more votes than the Republican candidate for 
Colorado Governor. As a result, elected officials recognized that this 
was an important issue to Colorado voters, and the following year 
Senate Bill 181 (Protect Public Welfare Oil And Gas Operations) was 
introduced. Immediately after SB 181 was introduced a FOIA request by 
the Colorado Oil and Gas Association was made for all communications 
between myself and the legislative authors of the bill.
    It was at this time I noticed more strangers exhibiting what I 
found to be suspicious activity at coffee shops where we had Colorado 
Rising staff meetings. On one occasion a gentleman was at the coffee 
shop for several hours while we were there. I began to be suspicious 
when I noticed that he was looking at the same documents from the 
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that we were discussing 
and viewing and when he stayed the full duration of our meeting.
    On another occasion when I was visiting the Colorado State Capitol 
a man I did not know began to follow me through the building. When I 
noticed this I attempted to lose him by ducking down hallways and 
changing floors but he continued to follow me until my friend 
confronted him. This same gentleman also showed up at a press 
conference that Colorado Rising hosted and recorded it on his phone and 
I also saw him at an Adams County Commissioners hearing. He never 
stated who he was or why he was attending any of these events. I also 
saw him at a local coffee shop I frequented which was very unsettling 
for me as I was not there in any professional capacity and no official 
events were taking place there, it was just me on my personal time.
    Soon after the pandemic, I left Colorado Rising. I started to 
encounter several symptoms of adrenal fatigue including hair loss, 
unexplained weight gain, and panic attacks. I sought the guidance of 
several health professionals including a psychologist and therapist. I 
eventually moved out of Boulder to a small town because I could no 
longer handle the stress. Prior to this, I was known in my personal and 
professional life as someone who could be trusted to handle crises and 
emergency response, something I could no longer do.
    Despite all that we endured, the strength and persistence of 
Coloradans volunteering their time to protect their families and 
communities from this destructive, boom-and-bust industry was deeply 
inspiring and something I will never forget. In the end, this isn't 
about my story or even Prop 112. It's about what we all are going to 
experience because of the damage these industries have wrought.

    I leave you with this quote that has inspired me throughout this 
experience from Nathaniel Rich's book, Losing Earth.

        ``Everything is changing about the natural world and everything 
        must change about the way we conduct our lives. It is easy to 
        complain that the problem is too vast, and each of us is too 
        small. But there is one thing that each of us can do ourselves, 
        in our homes, at our own pace--something easier than taking out 
        the recycling or turning down the thermostat, and something 
        more valuable. We can call the threats to our future what they 
        are. We can call the villains villains, the heroes heroes, the 
        victims victims and ourselves complicit. We can realize that 
        all this talk about the fate of Earth has nothing to do with 
        the planet's tolerance for higher temperatures and everything 
        to do with our species' tolerance for self-delusion. And we can 
        understand that when we speak about things like fuel-efficiency 
        standards or gasoline taxes or methane flaring, we are speaking 
        about nothing less than all we love and all we are.''

EXHIBIT A: RS Energy Group Report:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HNC5cHKxEkD2diBo0SWgdqxgagR_5yoy/
view?usp=sharing

Heartland Institute, a pro-oil and gas think tank, claims about 112:

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research-
-commentary-proposition-112-would-negatively-impact-colorados-economy

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Anne Lee Foster, Former Director 
   of Communication and Community Engagement for Colorado Rising and 
       Ballot Initiative Proponent of Colorado's Proposition 112
              Questions Submitted by Representative Porter
    Question 1. In addition to the events you described in your hearing 
testimony, what other negative consequences have you or your 
organization suffered in the wake of your attempts to pass the Colorado 
ballot measures?

    Answer. Several of the core team members had their phones hacked or 
their computers mysterious blacked out and rendered useless. Examples 
of hacking were having text messages and phone calls not be transmitted 
at all and for no apparent reason. In one instance the individuals were 
sitting next to each other and sending test messages that appeared to 
go through on the sender's phone but were never received on the other 
phone. In another instance, the inbox of my email account was deleted 
with no way to trace the messages after getting onto a public wifi 
network while on vacation in Canada.
    We also had at least two attempts from the opposition to leverage 
fines against us via complaints filed with the state regarding our 
funding and wages reports for signature gathering. These were all 
dismissed but were extremely stressful as the consequences would have 
cost thousands of dollars to either the organization or us personally.

    Question 2. From your time working on Proposition 112 and 
advocating on behalf of local residents, please elaborate on how 
fracking and other oil and gas extraction affected the health of nearby 
communities.

    Answer. The impacts are numerous and I heard firsthand accounts 
that ranged from short-term acute effects like nose bleeds, asthma 
attacks, coughing episodes, headaches, irritated eyes and throat to 
significantly more long-term and critical health impacts like cancer, 
low birth weight in newborns, cardiovascular disease, and deadly 
explosions like in the instance of the Firestone home explosion that 
killed two men and gravely injured two others in their home. When I was 
working on the issue several studies from the Colorado School of Public 
Health and the state of Colorado concluded there is an elevated risk of 
adverse health impacts from living near oil and gas extraction 
facilities from exposure to toxic emissions and explosions were a 
monthly occurrence in the state.
    Many residents also reported their homes shaking from horizontal 
drilling occurring under their homes or from seismic testing the 
operators performed in neighborhoods. The traffic, noise, and lights 
were frequent points of stress and disruption for nearby communities. 
These complaints are well documented in the Colorado Oil and Gas 
Commission's logs.
    It is also important to note the facilities that were causing these 
impacts are not the single pump jacks of old western films. These are 
multi-well pads, in many cases 40 wells or more to a site, and are a 
full industrial operation that isn't subject to any local zoning codes 
which also impacted property values.

    Here is a sample of studies documenting health impacts in Colorado 
and the greater United States:

    A Princeton study of 10 million babies found that infants born 
within one kilometer (3,280 ft) of a fracking well were 25% more likely 
to have low birth weights (less than 5.5 pounds) than infants born more 
than three kilometers away.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/12/13/hydraulic-fracturing-
negatively-impacts-infant-health

    Colorado School of Public Health study: Concluded residents living 
\1/2\ mile from wells are at greater risk for health effects from NGD 
than are residents living >\1/2\ mile from wells.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22444058

    Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Colorado 
School of Public Health study: Found negative birth impacts within 10 
miles of oil and gas development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10.1289%2Fehp.1306722

    Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project Study: The 
panel reached consensus that setbacks of <\1/4\ mile should not be 
recommended and additional setbacks for vulnerable populations should 
be recommended.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0202462

    Environmental Health Perspectives study: Found that the average 
evacuation zone was 0.8 mi (4224 ft.). Concluded there is no defined 
setback distance that assures safety based on evaluation of numerous 
health impacts.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510547

    Hopkins Asthma Study: People with asthma who live near bigger or 
larger numbers of active unconventional natural gas wells operated by 
the fracking industry in Pennsylvania are 1.5 to 4 times likelier to 
have asthma attacks than those who live farther away.

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2016/study-fracking-industry-
wells-associated-with-increased-risk-of-asthma-attacks.html

    Hopkins Birth Study: The researchers found that living in the most 
active quartile of drilling and production activity was associated with 
a 40 percent increase in the likelihood of a woman giving birth before 
37 weeks of gestation (considered pre-term) and a 30 percent increase 
in the chance that an obstetrician had labeled their pregnancy ``high-
risk.''

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/study-fracking-industry-
wells-associated-with-premature-birth.html

    Global Public Health Review Paper: ``We have enough evidence at 
this point that these health impacts should be of serious concern to 
policymakers interested in protecting public health,'' Gorski said.

http://oxfordre.com/publichealth/view/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190632366.001.0001/acrefore-9780190632366-e-44

    May 26, 2017: Gas Well Blowout in Logan County where a safety valve 
failed. This resulted in a 2-mile evacuation radius.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/26/leaking-gas-well-sterling-
evacuations/

    September 8th, 2017: Valve leak at SRC Energy site evacuates high 
school football game to \1/2\ mile.

https://www.greeleytribune.com/news/local/west-greeley-gas-leak-forces-
evacuation-of-football-stadium-during-game/

    December 22, 2017: Extraction Oil & Gas wellsite explodes resulting 
in a 1 mile evacuation radius.

https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.18/energy-industry-how-site-workers-and-
firefighters-responding-to-a-2017-natural-gas-explosion-in-windsor-
colorado-narrowly-avoided-disaster

    November 7, 2018: Noble Energy well site fire evacuated to one 
mile.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/11/07/oil-gas-fire-weld-county/

    November 13, 2018: Noble Energy well site fire resulted in \1/2\ 
mile evacuation radius.

https://www.greeleytribune.com/news/noble-energy-site-near-windsor-
catches-fire/

    Question 3. In your testimony, you shared that over the course of 
your campaign you documented numerous individuals engaging in nefarious 
tactics, including following, harassing, and sabotaging your efforts. 
You provided the Committee with screenshots from various text messages 
you received from an individual after your campaign collected enough 
signatures to get on the ballot. Can you describe how you first came to 
know this person and what your interactions with the person were like? 
How did your interactions with this individual, and other similar 
interactions, affect you? Did it affect how you approached organizing 
and campaigning?

    Answer. The first time I interacted with the individual that sent 
the text messages in the screenshots was at a signature gathering 
training that I lead in the Boulder campaign office. The individual 
attended the training and presented himself as a supporter of the 
cause, even answering ``icebreaker'' questions like ``why are you 
interested in volunteering for this campaign?'' At the time, his 
demeanor and responses instigated red flags in my mind and I noted that 
I felt he was an infiltrator and not fully disclosing his intentions in 
being there.
    The next interaction I had with this individual was outside the 
Colorado Secretary of State's office in Denver when we submitted our 
collected signatures to be placed on the ballot. There were 4-5 
individuals standing outside the building and in the lobby seemingly 
waiting for our arrival. We had a similar ``greeting committee'' when 
we submitted the collected signatures in 2016. I recognized one of the 
individuals waiting for us as the same suspicious person that attended 
the signature gathering training. I proceeded to tell him I was glad he 
could make it to the big event and that he should know I was aware that 
he was misrepresenting himself from our first interaction a few months 
before.
    After the Colorado Secretary of State certified our initiative as a 
proposition on the 2018 ballot, I received the text messages in the 
screenshots congratulating me on our success. A few days later, the 
same individual text me again asking if I would like to go out for 
coffee or ice cream. I did not respond.

    Question 4. What is a SLAPP suit? By whom and for what reasons was 
one brought against your organization? What was the outcome of that 
lawsuit?

    Answer. A SLAPP suit stands for strategic litigation against public 
participation. Two other individuals from our organization and myself 
were sued by the principal of the first signature-gathering firm that 
we contracted with for stating publicly that they had taken our 
signatures without our permission and that they attempted to extort us 
for their return. The lawsuit last over a year and a half and resulted 
in the plaintiffs withdrawing the suit. We had recorded all 
conversations with the principal of the firm that showed him admitting 
to taking the signatures and the attempted extortion. We were also all 
protected by good samaritan laws because we were volunteers. Finally, 
the only damages the firm could provide was the loss of a contract with 
PACWest, a communications firm that is well known for working with the 
oil and gas industry and is a subject of investigation in this hearing.

    Question 5. Is there anything else you would like to add for the 
hearing record?

    Answer. No.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much for that valuable 
testimony.
    Reminding Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-
minute limit on questions, the Chair will now recognize Members 
for any questions they may wish to ask the witnesses.
    I would like to start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 
I am going to start by directing my questions to Ms. Arena.
    Ms. Arena, you are a 20-year communications industry 
professional specializing in sustainability and social impact 
campaigns. Is that correct?
    Ms. Arena. That is correct.
    Ms. Porter. OK. And roughly how many campaigns have you 
worked on over these past 20 years?
    Ms. Arena. I have worked on roughly over 100 campaigns, and 
I still do this work.
    Ms. Porter. Based on your experience, do you know what the 
standard practices are in the public relations industry?
    Ms. Arena. I certainly do.
    Ms. Porter. According to your written testimony, you wrote, 
``There is nothing standard or ethical about the practices of 
the PR firms we are discussing today.'' What makes these 
practices different from the standard work PR firms perform for 
clients?
    Ms. Arena. Well, that quote in my written testimony was in 
reference to the third-party mobilization tactic of hiring fake 
protesters to disrupt an ongoing Colorado Rising event. You 
know, hiring fake protesters is unethical in multiple ways.
    First, they are fake protesters, right? There is the 
simulation of community support or opposition that isn't really 
necessarily real.
    Secondly, it is not disclosed who is paying for and funding 
those paid protesters.
    And thirdly, those paid protesters that I wrote about were 
actually engaging in what I believe are harassment behaviors. 
That is, stalking Colorado Rising members as they were trying 
to make their voices heard.
    I do not believe that there is a single trade association 
in my industry that would consider the hiring of fake 
protesters to be an ethical marketing practice. And I certainly 
don't consider that standard.
    Ms. Porter. It is a far cry from the kind of typical image 
promotion or advertisements that we think about with PR firms.
    These unethical practices, these unethical PR firms, are 
often most effective at the local level, where powerful 
corporate interests can overwhelm local communities. Ms. 
Foster, what was your experience in Colorado facing off against 
one of these PR firms?
    Ms. Foster. The harassment was extensive. We logged 
throughout the state and throughout the entire 4 months of our 
campaign, the extensive harassment and targeting was 
approximately $40 million spent against the campaign in the, I 
think, 9 total months that we were running the campaign.
    So, yes, they were incredibly sophisticated and widespread. 
And this was just against, like I said, moms, grassroots 
campaign people that are doing this in their spare time. They 
don't have the expertise and sophisticated techniques that 
these campaigns were implementing against us.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you, Ms. Foster. The groups in Colorado 
opposing this proposition that you worked on reported spending 
upwards of $30 million on their campaign.
    Ms. Arena, to go back to you, is that a typical amount for 
a PR firm to spend on a state ballot campaign?
    Ms. Arena. That is a very high amount to spend on a state 
ballot campaign, I would say, $31 million. They outspent the 
opposition by, I think that would be a factor of over 30 to 1. 
And that money, obviously, went very far for them.
    Ms. Porter. And how did the PR firm use the millions of 
dollars it received from the oil and gas industry for this 
campaign?
    What were some of the messages that they were trying to 
promote and give the appearance that they were coming from the 
community?
    Ms. Arena. Yes. Well, I can say that it is obvious that 
they tried to flood the zone with as much media as they 
possibly could: TV, social posts, direct mail, op-eds, events, 
and so forth. They obviously did very big, large media buys, I 
would assume.
    And the third-party mobilization efforts were quite 
extensive. So, there would be a lot of work done around 
recruiting those individuals, paying them, managing them, 
pushing them to, again, echo the talking points of the 
campaign. Again, a lot of that was undisclosed activity, where 
it wasn't clear who was funding those actors. So, those are 
very expensive campaigns.
    The messaging was a little bit on the extreme side. I think 
that Colorado Rising--the effort, the ballot initiative--was 
framed as a liberal effort to drive conservatives out of the 
state of Colorado. So, we saw very extreme language used in the 
scope of the campaign itself.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. The Chair will now 
recognize Ranking Member Moore, the gentleman from Utah, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair.
    Let's just simply state what we are talking about today, 
that it is OK for environmental groups to put spin or narrative 
and create a storyline that even the Denver Post had to come 
back and retract and correct misleading statements from a 
narrative that was getting pushed in Colorado, but it is not OK 
for American energy companies to tell their story.
    You cannot have it both ways. And today's hearing is 
entirely about not even looking at the misinformation or 
narratives that we have seen from environmental groups being an 
example that hopefully we get a chance to discuss today.
    I would like to just go through and just a sincere yes or 
no from each of our witnesses. And I am going to open it up, 
not just the Republican witness today, to all of you, just a 
sincere yes or no. And then I will move on to some questions 
that I have prepared.
    Is natural gas a better energy source for reducing 
emissions than coal? Does anybody disagree with that statement? 
Do you agree that natural gas is better than, it emits less 
pollutants than coal? Can we just go down the list of everybody 
here on the panel today?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Moore. I can read everybody's name. Sorry. I will grab 
everybody's names here. Here we go.
    Ms. Arena?
    Ms. Arena. No, methane is one of the top greenhouse gases.
    Mr. Moore. Just a yes or no.
    Ms. Arena. No.
    Mr. Moore. So, you think that coal is better than natural 
gas?
    Ms. Arena. No, I don't think coal is better. I think 
natural gas is slightly better----
    Mr. Moore. Well, that was--I am just asking for a yes or 
no. Would you rather have it be coal? Because wind can't do it 
all. We can't cover it all with wind. I wish we could, but we 
can't.
    So, Ms. Aronczyk?
    Dr. Aronczyk. I am an expert in communications and media 
strategies----
    Mr. Moore. Just a yes or no. Ms. Cooke, a yes or no.
    Ms. Cooke. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. And Ms. Foster?
    Ms. Foster. I am sorry. Could you just clarify----
    Mr. Moore. Would you prefer it to be coal or natural gas?
    Ms. Foster. I am just confused by the question.
    Mr. Moore. I understand. See, this is what I am talking 
about. We can't get to the root of the problem here.
    Let's just--me, as 1 Member of 435 Members of Congress, 
what I am trying to do is help us avoid what Europe is going 
through right now. They succumbed to a narrative that natural 
gas was the worst thing in the world, even though it reduces 
emissions. And then they just buy it from Russia. Then we have 
a global catastrophic event going on in Ukraine right now with 
Russia, the evil empire that they are. So, they have to then go 
away from the energy there, and so they go back to coal, right? 
And I just want to help us avoid that.
    And I am not saying that my party has ever had this 
perfect. We haven't. But what we know is we have to have 
energy. We have to be able to get to and from places. 
Democrats, Republicans, we all use energy. And I just want to 
help us build a broader, more expansive, strategic plan on how 
to go about doing this.
    Otherwise, just constantly demonizing the energy industry 
that--well, I found in my interactions with them, they have 
been sincere on their efforts to embrace clean technology and 
reduce emissions. Across the Wasatch Front in Utah, they 
invested an enormous amount of money, over-invested into tier 3 
gasoline. They didn't have to. They weren't forced to do it. 
They did it because it was the right thing to do. We are all 
for that, and we have been trying to promote that as much as 
possible.
    I get a little excited about this issue, so I apologize. I 
sincerely was not trying to badger any of the witnesses. It is 
just--we get two options. I just want to know what would you 
rather, what we would rather be doing?
    I will go back to Ms. Cooke here with about a minute left.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that energy policy is all 
about trade-offs. Can you just spend a few more minutes on 
highlighting that, and then we will have a chance to jump into 
some other questioning?
    Ms. Cooke. Yes, thanks for the question.
    We often think that the trade-off is just emissions. So, we 
will say we are going to shut down a coal-fired power plant and 
replace it with wind, solar, batteries, and some natural gas. 
And then, therefore, will have lower emissions. But it is 
really not that simple.
    A single working mom sees her electricity bills skyrocket, 
her power is shut off. It affects her quality of life. That is 
a trade-off. Are we willing to do that to our fellow citizens?
    But there are more trade-offs to consider, and it is 
everything. It is land use, it is energy efficiency per capita, 
it is cost, it is grid reliability, it is environmental 
concerns, mineral extraction, resource development, 
geopolitical, political.
    And, also, just the role of each resource. Coal is a 
baseload resource. Natural gas is an immediate type of 
resource. Wind and solar are non-dispatchable, available when 
Mother Nature decides that they are. It is about trade-offs. 
And that is what we need to be talking about in the energy 
policy arena. And it also includes how it is going to impact 
our fellow citizens.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Ms. Cooke.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Velazquez. Yes, good morning, and thank you, Madam 
Chair, for this important hearing.
    Ms. Aronczyk, in your testimony you draw a parallel between 
the long-term PR strategies used by the tobacco industry as 
they tried to downplay the health impact of their product in 
the 1980s and 1990s and the fossil fuel industry's efforts to 
prevent action on climate change. Can you please briefly 
explain why these strategies remain highly effective, even 
across completely different sectors?
    Dr. Aronczyk. Thank you for that question. The long-term, 
strategic nature of public relations strategies--of course, the 
most obvious answer is that they work. They work to delay 
responses to environmental problems. They work to delay 
environmental regulations and legislation. And they often 
distort or otherwise confuse the message on whether these 
environmental problems or climate issues are prevalent and 
urgent.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And Ms. Aronczyk, PR firms are 
weaponizing information by creating false narratives about the 
role that the fossil fuel industry plays in contributing to the 
climate crisis. In your research, what effective strategies, if 
any, have you come across to combat the spread of 
disinformation?
    Dr. Aronczyk. Strategies to combat the spread of 
disinformation?
    Ms. Velazquez. Yes, please.
    Dr. Aronczyk. This is a tough question because it is very 
challenging to know when there is constant disinformation 
circulating, what is real and what is manufactured. So, the 
onus ends up being on individuals to try to develop strategies 
to pay attention to certain sources or multiple sources. Most 
people don't have the kind of background information to be able 
to parse especially some of the technical conversations and to 
know where the facts are.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
    Ms. Arena, would you like to comment on that question?
    Ms. Arena. Yes, and I would like to put into perspective 
how common and how widespread a problem this is. According to a 
survey that was just released last week, 60 percent of oil 
supermajor messaging contains a green claim, 60 percent. That 
is the majority of their public-facing communications 
containing a green claim, where less than 12 percent of their 
capital expenditures are actually invested in those green 
activities. It is even lower for Chevron and Exxon and U.S. gas 
companies, as well.
    And at the same time, the lobbying activity of these 
companies is diametrically opposed to the public positions they 
are taking. So, the rhetoric that they aim toward lawmakers is 
completely different from the rhetoric they project out into 
the world. So, what that does is it creates a mass level of 
confusion around what it is that these companies are really 
doing. And that is what we object to.
    We do not object to the fact that these companies are 
communicating. We are objecting to how they are communicating 
and the strategies and tactics that they are using.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Ms. Arena, I understand in 2015 
you resigned from your position as Executive Vice President at 
Edelman, citing the firm's stance on climate change as the 
reason. Given your experience, what does holding PR firms like 
Edelman accountable look like?
    Ms. Arena. Well, I think the first thing that needs to 
happen is open dialogue. The fact that we are here in a hearing 
where not a single public relations firm engaged in some of 
these activities is present--and they have all declined to 
participate--I think is quite significant. There clearly needs 
to be a straightforward and open discussion about these issues 
that are absolutely connected with the climate change problem.
    We have scientific consensus from the IPCC linking 
misinformation and corporate brand building and advertising 
efforts with climate obstruction. So, there is consensus around 
this problem.
    This is a conversation that the PR world needs to get 
engaged in, and I help to drive those efforts forward, as well.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you very much.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice.
    Dr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Arena, let me begin with you. Yes or no, is Generous 
Ventures a member of the Clean Creatives campaign?
    Ms. Arena. Yes. We signed that pledge.
    Dr. Hice. OK, thank you. And were you a founding member of 
the Clean Creatives campaign? That is correct, isn't it?
    Ms. Arena. I was one of the early members, correct.
    Dr. Hice. OK. All right. Can you tell me who was behind the 
funding of Clean Creatives, the campaign?
    Ms. Arena. Individuals? No, I can't tell you that. I know 
some of the foundations they have raised money from. But again, 
I am not on the management committee over there, just a member.
    Dr. Hice. OK. Do you know, does Clean Creatives accept 
foreign money or foreign support while trying to influence 
American policy?
    Ms. Arena. I could not comment on their finances.
    Dr. Hice. Well, I am not asking you to comment on the 
finances. I am asking you if they accept foreign money.
    Ms. Arena. Again, I don't know if they accept foreign 
money.
    Dr. Hice. Would you please provide a list of the funders 
that you are aware of to this Committee? We would appreciate 
that. You said you do know some. I am asking you to provide 
that to the Committee please.
    What kind of support does Fossil Free Media and the KR 
Foundation provide to Clean Creatives?
    Ms. Arena. KR Foundation is a foundation that supports 
climate accountability work around the world. And they are a 
funder of Fossil Free. And as I put in my disclosure form, I 
also received a grant from KR Foundation.
    Dr. Hice. OK. Madam Chair, I have a couple of e-mails here 
that I would like to submit for the record. The first is one 
sent out by Fossil Free Media about a press release regarding 
the Majority's threat to a subpoena to FTI. The other is the 
actual press release from the Majority in that regard.
    Ms. Porter. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Hice

                Emails regarding the FTI subpoena threat


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





    Dr. Hice. Thank you very much. The interesting thing with 
these e-mails here, the first being sent out by Fossil Free 
announcing the Majority's threat to subpoena FTI from Clean 
Creatives, it is stamped-marked 5:34 p.m. Eastern Time on 
August 17.
    On the other hand, the official press release from the 
Majority went out on that same day, August 17 at 7:28 p.m., so 
almost 2 hours after the e-mail from Fossil Free.
    Ms. Arena, do you know how Clean Creatives became aware 
that the Majority was threatening to subpoena FTI?
    Ms. Arena. No. Again, I don't work inside Fossil Free 
Media. I am a member of their campaign, so I couldn't speak to 
that.
    Dr. Hice. Are you privy to information about future 
Committee actions prior to the implementation or the public 
announcement of Committee work?
    Ms. Arena. If the Committee reaches out to us via e-mail, 
we would be privy to that information. But otherwise, no.
    Dr. Hice. So, are you saying the Committee reached out to 
you beforehand about the subpoena?
    Ms. Arena. Yes. I was made aware that it would potentially 
happen.
    Dr. Hice. It is very concerning to me that an outside 
advocacy group knew hours before the public knew that the 
Majority was going to threaten to issue a subpoena. It makes me 
wonder what other information the Committee leaks, the Majority 
leaks, to third-party outside groups before the public is made 
aware of this. It is extremely concerning to me and 
hypocritical that we are even having this hearing today. This 
is totally bogus, totally hypocritical.
    Ms. Cooke, let me go to you. Clean Creatives is allowed to 
engage in free speech. But at the very same time, the public 
relations firms representing the oil and gas industry are under 
investigation for exercising free speech. Ms. Cooke, aren't 
there some PR firms that attempt to influence voters against 
oil companies that are funded by some of this dark money? Yes 
or no?
    Ms. Cooke. Yes.
    Dr. Hice. Would you repeat that?
    Ms. Cooke. Yes.
    Dr. Hice. OK. Isn't it hypocritical to you, incredibly 
hypocritical, to say that one side should have free speech and 
the other side should not?
    Ms. Cooke. Yes.
    Dr. Hice. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your 
leadership on such an important issue.
    Constituents in my district care deeply about advancing 
renewable energy and creating a cleaner and healthier community 
for all. And I imagine that the oil and gas industry knows that 
a great way to combat popular support for building a clean 
energy future is with disinformation or anti-democratic tactics 
that prevent communities from doing what they truly believe is 
best for them.
    And I am particularly alarmed by Ms. Foster's experience in 
Colorado, where the oil and gas PR firms blocked a popular 
ballot proposition using tactics described by Ms. Foster as 
nothing short of harassment, stalking, and fraud.
    And more than anything, I am alarmed by the Committee's 
findings that this is a pervasive issue.
    Through PR firms, the fossil fuel industry is strategically 
misleading members of all of our constituencies to line their 
own pockets, stymie climate action, and disrupt the democratic 
process, and they have for decades as our communities suffer 
deep consequences.
    Ms. Foster, in your testimony, you spoke about the 
difficulties that Colorado Rising had retaining professional 
signature-gathering firms for your ballot proposition. How 
common is it to use such a firm, and is it fair to say that a 
ballot campaign has to use one to have a fair shot?
    Ms. Foster. The requirements in 2018 to make the ballot 
were collecting over 100,000 signatures from registered 
Colorado voters, which is an enormous task. And I know of only 
one other ballot initiative campaign that has ever successfully 
accomplished that without a professional signature-gathering 
firm. So, I would say it is an imperative part of the process.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And what happened with your 
signature-gathering firms?
    Do you believe that you could access one whose work you 
could trust?
    Ms. Foster. By the end of the signature-gathering campaign, 
we no longer felt that we could trust any campaigns to not be 
paid off or flip on us, so we ended up actually taking on the 
entire signature-gathering operation ourselves in the middle of 
the campaign because we lost three firms.
    Mr. Tonko. And multiple firms leaving sounds like a 
pattern.
    In a recording obtained by the Committee, Colorado Rising 
volunteers asked a signature gatherer why he abruptly stopped 
working with Colorado Rising. He said, and I quote, ``Oh, 
nobody threatened me. You know what they are doing? They are 
going around buying people.''
    Ms. Foster, do you believe the other signature gatherers 
were also paid off?
    Ms. Foster. The first signature-gathering firm said that 
they had been offered a bribe at the beginning of the campaign, 
and the quality of work quickly deteriorated. That gentleman 
openly stated that he was, and then we had another one leave 
the campaign earlier than we had previously agreed upon. So, I 
think the possibility is certainly likely.
    Mr. Tonko. And in the same recording, the signature 
gatherer admitted he had been asked to give the signatures he 
had collected to the opposition group. Ms. Foster, would you 
characterize this behind-the-scenes interference with your 
campaign as an open and civil discussion?
    Ms. Foster. No, not at all.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. I thank you for your response to my 
questions.
    I certainly believe the American public deserves to 
understand the extent that PR firms help oil and gas companies 
by manipulating public perception and blocking popular efforts.
    With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlelady from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Foster, in 2018, Colorado Rising, a far left 
environmental group that you helped lead, attempted to pass 
Proposition 112, an oil and gas setback initiative that would 
have established a 2,500-foot setback between new oil and gas 
development that occupied buildings. Were you successful in 
doing so?
    Ms. Foster. No, we were not. We encountered an 
approximately $40 million opposition campaign in comparison to 
our about $1 million. So, foreign----
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Ms. Foster. You were not 
successful in doing so.
    When put to a public vote, the initiative lost by 10 
points. And the reason why is obvious: natural gas and oil 
supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Colorado, 
approximately 235,000 jobs. And your ultimate goal to impose a 
fracking ban on our state threatens to destroy our economy and 
compromise our energy independence.
    Ms. Foster, your America-last socialist organization has 
repeatedly attempted to hit the oil and gas industry in 
Colorado, including through ballot initiatives, while Colorado 
Democrat Governor and Democrat Senators from my state promised 
to support several of the initiatives you put forward. They 
have since back-tracked, most notably last year, when the 
Governor indicated he couldn't support Senate Bill 21-200.
    In a scathing letter to Governor Polis in April 2021, 
Colorado Rising had this to say: ``What is particularly 
troubling about the Governor's attack on SB 200 is his use of 
oil and gas industry talking points to justify his opposition 
to the bill.'' Given your support for these elected officials 
and their willingness to peel back numerous aspects of your 
radical agenda, would it be fair to say that the Governor, 
along with the Democrat Senators, betrayed your trust?
    And are you disappointed in them for that way?
    Ms. Foster. I am not entirely sure how this pertains to the 
topic of PR firms, but the ultimate reality is that Proposition 
112 was supported by the Colorado Democratic Party platform. We 
got over a million votes from registered Colorado voters. We 
secured the----
    Mrs. Boebert. And the voters shut it down. Would it be fair 
to say that the Governor and the Senators misled you into 
believing that they supported your anti-affordable energy 
agenda? They back-tracked on this.
    Ms. Foster. I wasn't a part of 200, and that is a separate 
issue from 112.
    Mrs. Boebert. Colorado Democrats and myself find ourselves 
in an interesting position because we do all disagree with your 
anti-energy agenda, not because Colorado Democrats are 
seriously interested in promoting affordable energy and 
Colorado jobs, but because your agenda, if carried to its 
logical conclusion, would involve the people of Colorado 
rubbing their hands together to stay warm in the coming winter 
months. And with natural gas prices at a 14-year high and 
getting higher, they just might have to do that.
    Now, Ms. Cooke, it appears to be the case that Democrats 
frequently design arguments as disinformation or misinformation 
to convince people that disagreeing with progressives' 
orthodoxy is the wrong thing to do. Would you agree with this 
assessment, and would you say that these kind of Democrat 
attacks do nothing but chill free speech?
    Ms. Cooke. Well, yes. I think a hearing like this that 
attacks anyone's right to provide another side, another voice 
is going to chill free speech.
    And make no mistake, it was voters that defeated 112. It 
wasn't anything else. It was voters.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Cooke.
    On June 12, 2022, the distinguished Chairman of this 
Committee led a letter in which he argued that public relations 
firms for oil and gas companies delay ``environmental 
initiatives.'' In your view, is that justification enough to 
take the extraordinary step of serving a PR firm with a 
subpoena?
    And is it appropriate to target PR firms who work with 
clients Democrats don't like?
    Ms. Cooke. No.
    Mrs. Boebert. Now, while this Committee willingly uses 
taxpayer resources to harass private companies--arguing, of 
course, that coal, oil, and gas companies are spending tens of 
millions of dollars to sway public opinion--actually, I want to 
move on. Sorry, I have 4 seconds.
    I really just want to know why isn't the Committee issuing 
subpoenas for PR firms that offer support for the climate 
change lobby, like the Sierra Club, who has repeatedly assured 
us that the genocidal Chinese Communist Party, even while they 
murdered millions of people in concentration camps, is actually 
quite interested in working with the Democrats' climate change 
agenda.
    Ms. Porter. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
will now recognize the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Mrs. 
Trahan, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Chairwoman Porter and Ranking 
Member Moore, just for allowing me to waive on to this 
important hearing.
    I think one thing that is important to note is that we can 
have free speech and stop the spread of disinformation if we 
stop with the grandstanding and just get to sensible policy-
making.
    Like many of my colleagues, I represent communities in 
Massachusetts, like Lowell and Lawrence, that have been harmed 
by decades of under-investment in clean energy and, most 
recently, record-breaking gas prices that big oil corporations 
leveled to increase their already record-breaking profits.
    And we are here today because of opaque business practices, 
both on the part of billion dollar oil companies and the PR 
firms they deploy to do their dirty work, but also social media 
companies, which, by collecting troves of personal data on 
users, have created services that can be weaponized to 
manipulate public discourse.
    It is important to recognize the relationship between these 
two industries which profit from the destruction of our 
ecosystems, and one example is the ability for companies and 
the PR firms that they employ to micro-target online 
advertisements. A study from the markup found Exxon was 
targeting an ad that said, ``Learn how global thermostat is 
capturing CO2 directly from the air'' to users who 
engage with liberal political content, while users who engage 
with conservative political content receive a very different ad 
that states, ``The oil and gas industry is the engine that 
powers America's economy. Help us make sure unnecessary 
regulations don't slow energy growth.''
    These types of ads are particularly concerning because they 
are targeted in ways where experts such as those here today may 
not see the misleading statement about economic growth and may 
not be able to jump in with counter-arguments. And it shouldn't 
take an investigative report to shine a light on this kind of 
shady behavior. But right now, that is all that we, as 
lawmakers and members of the public, have.
    In February, I introduced legislation to change that. The 
Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act, or DSOSA for short, 
is a comprehensive transparency bill that requires companies 
that host user-generated content to disclose data on digital 
advertisements, recommendation algorithms, and publish risk 
mitigation reports. In layman's terms, no longer will companies 
like Exxon be able to hide behind ad targeting algorithms and 
secretive social media policies when they try to pit Americans 
against each other on the climate crisis. And it is for that 
exact reason that DSOSA is supported by over 15 environmental 
organizations.
    So, Dr. Aronczyk, can you speak to the way large social 
media platforms influence the spread of climate disinformation?
    How might scholars in media studies and similar fields 
benefit from having access to detailed ad libraries and similar 
transparency metrics?
    Dr. Aronczyk. Well, first, I would like to mention that 
when we are talking about digital advertising, we really have 
duopoly of power in Facebook and Google. So, when we are seeing 
some of these targeted social media messages, we really see a 
concentration of power over what we see, when we see it, where 
we see it, and how often.
    So, if media researchers like myself can have access to 
understanding these documents, who is targeted, how are these 
campaigns being manufactured to work toward certain audiences 
and not others, that can let researchers ask better questions 
and produce more informed research.
    Mrs. Trahan. That is exactly right. And those are our 
watchdogs. I couldn't agree more.
    Companies, like you said, Facebook and Google, they have 
teams that purport to fight coordinated, inauthentic behavior 
that undermines democracy. And we must shift the incentives of 
social media companies to put more effort into identifying and 
bringing transparency to these campaigns. Given the profit 
motives, it will require regulation.
    So, I invite my colleagues to co-sponsor the Digital 
Services Oversight and Safety Act because we can't continue to 
let opaque business practices and algorithmic targeting of 
information harm democracy, consumers, and our planet.
    Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate you letting me 
waive on, and I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
    We will now begin a second round of questions. I recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Foster, I want to show the public and the members of 
this Committee some screen captures from a video.
    [Slide.]
    Ms. Porter. Who are these three people, and what is going 
on here?
    Ms. Foster. One of the individuals is someone who is 
gathering signatures for the Proposition 112 campaign, and the 
other two are protesters that are actively following her and 
encouraging her to stop gathering signatures.
    Ms. Porter. Did the counter-protesters say what it would 
take for them to leave, to stop following them?
    Ms. Foster. Yes. They said that they would stop following 
her if she put away her petition and stopped gathering 
signatures.
    Ms. Porter. So, rather than facilitating the signature 
gatherers' free speech rights, they were trying to hinder and 
discourage her.
    Was this an isolated incident, or was this a common 
occurrence?
    Ms. Foster. This was a common occurrence that happened 
throughout the state of Colorado.
    Ms. Porter. I want to bring to your attention a leaked e-
mail from Anadarko, a major oil company that operates in the 
Colorado area. It says, in part, if you see signature 
collectors for number 97 or number 94, please follow the 
instructions below to report said canvassers via text. Text 
canvas to 72345. You will receive a note that says, ``Where did 
you see a canvasser in your area?'' Respond with a specific 
time, date, and location.
    Ms. Foster, what is Anadarko asking for here?
    Ms. Foster. They are asking their employees to report to 
this text hotline the location of any of our signature 
gatherers, if they see them out actively collecting signatures.
    Ms. Porter. And what would happen if the signatures were 
reported?
    Ms. Foster. As reported by Sam Brasch in Colorado Public 
Radio, a group of protesters would be deployed to the location 
within 10 to 15 minutes, and then they would actively begin to 
interfere with the signature-gathering process.
    Ms. Porter. Do you think Anadarko also paid those men to 
follow the signature gatherers?
    And if you do think that, please tell the Committee why.
    Ms. Foster. So, when the Colorado Public Radio followed up 
with Anadarko regarding this letter and the text hotline, they 
defaulted to Protect Colorado, which is an Astroturf group in 
Colorado. And the finances show that Anadarko has paid a 
significant amount of money to Protect Colorado.
    Ms. Porter. So, this group, the so-called Protect Colorado, 
has very tight ties with the PR firm Pac/West. Nearly 80 
percent of Protect Colorado's expenditures from 2016 to 2018 
were payments to Pac/West.
    Given the known PR firm tactics mobilizing these third 
parties, do you think it is likely that Pac/West might have 
hired these men to engage in following the signature gatherer?
    Ms. Foster. I know that our first signature-gathering firm 
specifically mentioned Pac/West when they described these types 
of opposition tactics. And as you stated, there is significant 
monetary connection there, as well.
    Ms. Porter. This screenshot I just showed came from a video 
the Committee obtained of two people following a canvasser in a 
residential neighborhood. In that video, one of the two 
people--the two gentleman I believe it is, following the 
canvasser--told the canvasser that if she wasn't comfortable 
with them following her, she should ``put away your petition.''
    Were those paid followers or the PR firm that hired them to 
pose as counter-protesters ever held accountable for this kind 
of intimidation tactic interfering with her speech?
    Ms. Foster. No.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you.
    With that, I will now recognize Mr. Hice or his designee 
for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very interesting.
    Actually, today--it was just coming out today--this 
Committee, House Natural Resources Committee, staff is putting 
out a report. The report is titled, ``The Role of Public 
Relations Firms in Preventing Action on Climate Change.'' This 
is not even yet on the Committee website. But yesterday, Clean 
Creatives is tweeting about this. They have a copy of it. Not 
yet even on the Committee's, the Majority's website, not 
public. Amazing how Clean Creatives got this. We have Clean 
Creatives yet again collaborating with the Majority, getting 
information before anybody else has that information, getting 
information about subpoenas before anyone else has, or getting 
reports before anyone else has it.
    This is just absolute insanity, what is going on here. And 
the real investigation ought to be taking place about that type 
of collaboration. But here we are, going through--Ms. Arena 
mentioned--the unethical PR practices, things like fake 
protesters, not knowing who is paying for it, harassing 
behaviors. This type of stuff that I mentioned even now becomes 
a part of it all, with what is going on here, and this whole 
thing is unethical, what we are watching.
    Ms. Cooke, let me go to you. In your opinion, what would 
happen if the United States just stopped producing oil and gas 
like many of these activist groups are clamoring for? What 
would happen?
    Ms. Cooke. It would be catastrophic. I will tell you what. 
You wouldn't have this hearing today. Civilization, the economy 
as we know it, would certainly collapse. And I don't think you 
need a computer modeling out 100 years to figure that out.
    But it is more. Think about this, the last 2 years with 
COVID, how many single-use syringes were necessary, and those 
were plastic, that you could dispose of. That is fossil fuels. 
The helmet that your child wears in any sports activity--I had 
a bike accident a couple of years ago. A fossil fuel-based 
helmet saved my life. Glasses saved my eyes. It is in 
everything. They are in everything.
    And it has been a more efficient, more effective use of 
fossil fuels which has actually lowered emissions over the last 
couple of decades. I mean, we have gotten better with it. It 
spurs innovation and technology, and that is what allows us to 
use it more efficiently, more effectively.
    Develop the technology to capture any emissions or go in 
another direction, to nuclear or something like that. But I 
can't imagine us ever, ever--it would be catastrophic, 
catastrophic if we didn't have----
    Dr. Hice. It would be catastrophic.
    Ms. Cooke. Yes.
    Dr. Hice. Thank you for your answer. It would be 
catastrophic.
    And it is amazing to me that, as we speak here today, China 
is in the process of making 50 of the largest coal plants in 
the world with no protections. They, obviously, are not 
concerned with climate change. They are not concerned with 
polluting the world. And, obviously, we right here are not 
concerned with them doing that, either. We have the cleanest 
coal in the world, and we have witnesses here today who can't 
even determine if they prefer natural gas over coal. Absolutely 
stunning.
    Ms. Cooke, let me come back to you. I recognize the 
importance of sharing how the daily lives of Americans were 
impacted by misguided policies. We want truth. All of us want 
truth out there. Your testimony described your efforts to 
provide an outlet for Coloradoans to share how anti-fracking 
measures would affect them. Could you briefly share some of 
those stories?
    Ms. Cooke. Yes, there was----
    Dr. Hice. You have about 1 minute.
    Ms. Cooke. Raul, a welder. He was the son of migrant 
workers who worked for ancillary support services for the oil 
and gas industry. He worked with his two sons. It was all about 
opportunity, jobs, future growth for him and his family. If 
that had passed, likely his livelihood would have been shut 
down.
    There was a volunteer firefighter, a young woman in New 
Raymer, Colorado. The oil and gas industry provided them all of 
the latest and greatest equipment so that she could be of 
service and help save lives in her community.
    Dr. Hice. Thank you very much.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Khanna, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to Chair 
Porter and Chair Grijalva for your leadership on this important 
issue. And I appreciate your looking at the misinformation that 
oil companies have been engaged in.
    I know Chair Porter and Chair Grijalva have been working on 
this issue, and I have been working on it with Chair Maloney. 
We have a hearing tomorrow to go over a lot of the 
misinformation that Big Oil has engaged in since the 1970s, and 
that they continue to mislead the public about, spending money 
on clean tech initiatives that are not actually taking place.
    Now, if we could put on the screen one of the ads that 
Exxon ran, that would be great.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Khanna. I think it is up because it is virtual.
    And my question, I guess, for our witnesses, is how does an 
ad like that even get made?
    And what would you say are the consequences of an ad like 
this?
    Ms. Arena. I am sorry. Are you calling on one of us 
specifically?
    Mr. Khanna. Yes. Ms. Arena, you go first.
    Ms. Arena. I can't see what ad you are referring to, but I 
would say in general how an ad like that gets made is a client 
comes to an ad firm or a PR firm with a brief. They want to 
express their commitment to green tech, whether it is carbon 
capture or whatever it is that they are doing. And the ads get 
made.
    The point is that most of these ads--almost all of them, 
according to a recent study by Grant Brown--contain factual 
omissions and distortions, as well as climate delay frames. And 
they are being amplified very aggressively.
    So, again, these corporations are over-indexing their 
public reputation on efforts that only represent a minimal 
aspect of their normal business.
    Mr. Khanna. And Ms. Arena, would a PR firm push back on an 
ad if it had misleading claims, or do they just publish 
whatever the oil companies want?
    Ms. Arena. Obviously, it differs from agency to agency.
    There is a culture inside agencies where you are a little 
more resistant to pushing back against the client brief, 
because it means you could lose the business. So, there is some 
pressure to kind of execute on a client's wish.
    Having said this, there is also responsibility within the 
agency world to be familiar with the science. The question 
about coal versus natural gas is an important one, and the 
questions about trade-offs are important because whoever is 
marketing natural gas needs to understand the dangers of 
methane, the fact that methane has 80 times the warming power 
of CO2. We need basic scientific literacy within 
agencies, and that literacy is either non-existent or too low. 
So, that gap needs to close.
    Mr. Khanna. Ms. Arena, one of the things that Chair Porter 
and her Committee discovered is that there is this website with 
30 million hits, which says that Exxon is committing to 
developing safe and reliable energy and mitigating the climate 
crisis.
    Is Exxon doing that, and was it responsible for the PR firm 
to be publishing such a bold, bold claim?
    Ms. Arena. Well, Exxon, I think about 8 percent of Exxon's 
capital expenditures are devoted to clean energy. And it is 
certainly making a massive effort to over-index its public 
reputation on that small 8 percent it is really a fossil fuel 
company. But oil and gas production continues to be its main 
focus.
    So, I do think that this over-indexing is unethical and 
needs to be policed.
    Mr. Khanna. And how would you police it? I mean, I didn't 
even know it was 8 percent. So, that is even more than I 
expected.
    But I mean, your words, you say it is unethical, and you 
say that it needs to be policed. I guess my last question would 
be how should we do that here in Congress?
    Our Committee on Oversight is working closely with Chair 
Porter, Chair Grijalva. How can we collectively police this 
over-indexing?
    Ms. Arena. From a perspective of over-indexing, I think 
rules around disclosure is what needs to happen.
    Most of these ads, they don't contain blatant lies. They 
contain a blend of factual omissions and distortions. So, it is 
incumbent upon agencies to be familiar with climate delay 
frames, how greenwashing works to be able to evaluate it and, 
from a perspective of lawmakers, to force those disclosures, 
especially around the third-party mobilization efforts, where 
you have these Astroturf groups, different third parties, 
proxies, where the fact that they are paid proxies is not 
revealed.
    And, again, these companies are engaging in policy matters. 
They are not using these practices to sell products. They are 
using these practices to engage in policy matters. And I think 
that is what makes this issue even more pointed.
    Ms. Porter. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
will now recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Cooke, I have a couple of very big-picture principles 
and concepts to go over with you. If you could, answer a few 
questions for me. Can you walk us through the relationship 
between the grid reliability and the energy transition?
    Ms. Cooke. Well, I would say currently it is not really a 
transition. I am worried we are actually going over a cliff.
    If we switch to predominantly undispatchable, non-
dispatchable, or unreliable resources and put them on a grid, 
providing--and this is going to sound kind of geeky--but poor 
quality, too much power at one time, not enough at another, the 
grid has to have balance. Electricity has to be used 
immediately, and it has to always be in balance.
    When you have sources like wind and solar--and I am not 
saying there is not a place for them, I am just saying when you 
have sources like wind and solar that aren't reliable in the 
sense of they are either spiky or they have times of the day 
when they aren't working, it makes the grid more fragile. It is 
less resilient, it is unstable. And you will see things like 
blackouts, brownouts, or, in some cases, a complete failure.
    Baseload power is baseload for a reason. And when you look 
at capacity factors, we need to be investing in things that can 
provide stable, reliable, clean, abundant, affordable power 
when we need it.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Ms. Cooke. And I will tell you 
that I experienced the blackouts in February 2020 at a time 
when the weather conditions in Montana were about 20 below 
zero. And the folks in Texas were experiencing the same types 
of issues. And we witnessed the near collapse of the entire 
power grid, which brings me to my next question.
    Do you agree the grid reliability and energy security are 
valid public policy concerns?
    Ms. Cooke. Absolutely, 100 percent, some of the single most 
important public policy concerns.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. And would you respond 
to accusations that discussing grid reliability, energy 
security, and climate goals together constitute greenwashing or 
disinformation?
    Ms. Cooke. Listen, I don't think any time you hear another 
voice, even if you disagree with it, it is not disinformation. 
It is simply somebody in the public arena having a debate. I 
get it. You don't like those people. I get it. But that doesn't 
mean we don't have valid concerns.
    And I will tell you what. If you want to see devastating 
consequences for the environment, see a grid collapse, see what 
that looks like when people are then burning whatever they can 
get their hands on to heat their homes or to cook food.
    It is not disinformation just because you don't agree with 
it. It is another perspective that deserves to be heard and, 
frankly, must be heard.
    And, by the way, that is how we come to the best solutions. 
I trust Americans. I trust voters. I trust legislators to look 
at all sides and do the right thing. Public policy 
organizations like mine, all we do is provide you the 
information. What you do with it is up to you. But we provide 
you the information so you can make sound public policy 
decisions, and that means hearing my perspective on energy 
security and grid stability.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. And Ms. Cooke, it has been 
demonstrated factually that the world is going to need oil and 
gas products for decades to come, not only for our energy, but 
because of all the by-products that are also generated by each 
and every one of these.
    Could you describe the benefits of having oil and gas 
produced here in the United States with the highest 
environmental standards and labor standards, rather than 
imported countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela?
    Ms. Cooke. Yes. Where I lived in Colorado, Weld County, 
Colorado, which was one of the highest oil and gas-producing 
counties in the country, 25,000 wells, and I might be wrong on 
that, but 95 percent of them are hydraulically fractured, 
improving air quality every single day because of the strict 
environmental standards that not just the United States, but 
the state of Colorado, put on oil and gas producers.
    Hydraulic fracturing alone, the ability to vertically and 
then horizontally and directionally drill was absolutely 
revolutionary in efficiency and emissions reduction.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
    And Madam Chair, I see that my time has expired.
    So, Ms. Cooke, thank you so much for your participation.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the Chair 
of the Full Committee on the House Natural Resources, the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the 
hearing, and diligence and hard work by yourself and the 
Committee staff. It is much appreciated.
    And the discussion today is not about ending gas and energy 
access for the American people, but to expose and seek truth in 
advertising from the gaslighting that Big Oil and Big Gas are 
doing on the American people through public relations. Not just 
firms, but specific strategies to keep the discussion from 
being on common ground. And that common ground to me is fact. 
It is science. And it is empirical information that people can 
deal with.
    And I think it is important to do that, because this is not 
just about promoting the benefits of a particular company, but 
it is about turning the discourse into something other than 
empirical, fact-based, science-based discussions about what is 
going on and how this is affecting the overall issue of climate 
in this country and around the world.
    But Dr. Aronczyk, why do gas and oil companies need PR 
firms? What are the reasons these companies can't just do the 
climate information/disinformation work by themselves?
    Why can't Chevron just be the Chevron company that sends 
out whatever information or disinformation they are sending 
out? Why do they need a third party, a PR firm?
    Dr. Aronczyk. There is a long-standing pattern of oil and 
gas companies hiding behind their PR representatives for a 
variety of reasons.
    One, when it comes to some of these really underhanded 
tactics we have been hearing about today, it is a desire to 
distance themselves from the dirty work that is being done and 
not to have their reputation tarnished.
    But, also, we can see the need to be protected against 
general reputational risk. These days it is very clear that 
climate change is a real and present danger, and companies 
don't want to be associated with the anti-environmental action. 
So, they use public relations firms.
    I think one of the most important reasons is that PR firms 
are experts in the business when it comes to long-term planning 
and strategy to promote industry viewpoints and to de-
legitimize advocates and advocacy for environmental action and 
climate change action.
    PR firms are able to coordinate across industry sectors so 
they can work with oil, gas, chemicals, pesticides, mining, 
because they have clients in all of those sectors. So, that 
kind of expertise is what fossil fuel companies rely on when 
they work with public relations firms.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    Now, Ms. Foster, yourself and members of Colorado Rising, 
motivated to start a campaign for increased fracking buffer 
zones. And you kept that going when the opposition was clearly 
very strong. What toll did it take on you, personally?
    Ms. Foster. Yes, this was extremely personally detrimental 
to me. My health suffered greatly. I began to experience panic 
attacks, insomnia, all as a result of being in a hyper-vigilant 
state for extended amounts of time. It was an incredible amount 
of stress that had long-term impacts on my health and others in 
the campaign, as well.
    Mr. Grijalva. And some of the tactics that were used in 
opposition to your campaign and the campaign that came from the 
people in Colorado--oil companies using PR firms--in a campaign 
as straight-up as that, why continue to use outside firms in 
opposition and pay them to do so?
    Ms. Foster. When we first contracted with a firm, we 
realized that that was a critical piece of the equation to 
obtaining the signatures we needed to make the ballot. It is an 
incredibly difficult process and very expensive.
    And once we started to have concerns about the loyalty and 
the commitment of the firm, we were already deep into the 
campaign. Many other firms were already contracted out, and we 
didn't feel that we had the time to pivot and start the entire 
operation over again.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    I yield back, and thank you very much again, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Graves.
    Are you able to question? You are up.
    Mr. Graves, the gentleman from Louisiana, is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am 
excited about this hearing because we are talking about 
misrepresenting the truth in this hearing today. We are talking 
about misrepresenting the truth to the American people. We are 
talking about, effectively, lying to people. That is what this 
hearing is about today.
    We have listened over the last 18 months as we have heard 
people say that we are aggressively carrying out this new 
energy agenda for the purpose of addressing climate change and 
reducing emissions. But the reality is that what has happened 
is we have actually seen emissions go up, not down. Let me say 
that again: under this Administration's policies designed to 
address climate change, we have watched emissions go up, not 
down.
    At the same time, we are in a situation now to where one-
fourth of all Americans, one-fourth of all Americans in this 
country, are in a situation where they have to decide if they 
are going to cover groceries, if they are going to cover 
healthcare costs, or if they are going to pay their utility 
bills. We are seeing record inflation, and it is a result of 
what is happening.
    This right here, respondents who forego necessary expenses, 
such as medicine or food, in order to pay an energy bill. So, 
they are giving up medicine or food in order to pay energy 
bills. This is the outcome of the Biden administration policies 
on the American people. It is unaffordable.
    I mean, looking at some of these percentages--again, in 
Texas, 34 percent of the respondents have said that they can't 
afford, that they have had to forego food or grocery costs in 
order to pay their utility bills.
    Look, so folks are saying, wait a minute, the Biden 
administration is doing a great job with energy. You actually 
have to go back to the 1940s, the 1940s, to find an 
administration that has leased fewer acres of land for energy 
production. The 1940s--take a look at this. I would take JFK, I 
would take Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter, during the first 19 
months of his administration, leased 100 times more acres of 
land for oil and gas production than we have seen under the 
Biden administration. Ronald Reagan, the big line up there, 375 
times more energy.
    So, folks can be sitting there saying, ``Well, wait a 
minute, I am worried about emissions.'' Let me say it again. 
This Administration's energy policies not only have made it 
unaffordable to cover groceries or medicine, where 25 percent 
of all Americans, one in every four Americans, have had to 
decide am I going to pay my utility bill, buy food, or pay for 
medicine, but they have also resulted in energy emissions going 
up, not down.
    And when I say up, let's be clear--up from a Trump 
baseline. Under the Trump administration, the emissions went 
down an average of 25 percent a year. What objective are we 
achieving?
    If we are talking about misleading the American people, 
let's be clear on who it is that is misleading the American 
people. It is the Biden administration. The Biden 
administration is misleading the American people, acting as 
though their energy strategies are resulting in lower emissions 
and addressing climate change. It is not. And it is pushing 
emissions to other countries that are growing up globally, as 
well. Who can look at this and think that this makes sense?
    I am glad we are talking about people that are dishonest, 
because we need to spend more time. Data doesn't lie, and the 
facts show that this Administration's energy policies are 
pushing people into poverty, are pushing jobs overseas, and are 
making energy unaffordable.
    But, wait, it is not just limited to families.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Graves. Our Sheriff from Terrebonne Parish, Sheriff 
Soignet, I asked him. I said, ``If you weren't spending these 
dollars on fuel and higher electricity utility costs, these are 
dollars that would be going into additional officers, 
equipment, and training.'' Sheriff Soignet says that is exactly 
right. He is confirming that what has happened is that, as a 
result of the Biden administration's energy policies, his 
sheriff's department is spending more money on those things, 
which is undermining his ability to actually fight crime and do 
the things that he is supposed to be doing.
    So, I can't say it enough. I am glad we are talking about 
misleading the American people, because we have the chief 
misleader who is out there telling the American people that 
these policies are working, and they are not.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
    I was thinking, people ask--it just seems like Democrats 
and Republicans aren't friends with each other, and let me tell 
you. I was friends--it was an honor to be friends with a former 
Member named John Dingell. And it wasn't because we had a lot 
of politics in common. He was just a very honest man. And I 
understood he cared deeply about people and people that needed 
a hand up.
    And that is why it was such a shame when he was Chairman of 
Energy and Commerce, and he was excited about doing something 
like Obamacare. He had been pushing for it for decades. We 
disagreed on that. But he refused to push through the cap-and-
trade bill because, as he famously said that got him fired as 
Chairman by Speaker Pelosi, he said that ``I am not bringing it 
to my Committee because that bill is not only a tax, it is a 
great big tax.'' And he knew it didn't really affect the 
wealthy. It was inconvenient for them to pay a little more. But 
who it really crushed was the poor and the lower middle class.
    And that is what is happening in America, as this 
Administration, as my friend, Garret Graves, has pointed out--
we are not leasing as much. We are cutting back on the energy 
resources with which this country has been blessed.
    And those of us that have grown up around drilling don't 
mind it. As my predecessor--who was a Democrat at the time--
Ralph Hall, said, ``Look, I don't mind drilling anywhere in the 
world except on my grave, and I am OK if you slant hole under 
my grave,'' because he knew how much it lowered the price of 
energy and helped people that didn't have.
    But I am particularly concerned about the efforts of the 
Majority party here. It seems an effort at intimidation because 
the firm is advertising and trying to point out the good, and 
it is helpful to people to be able to pay less for energy.
    And it would be helpful if people weren't misled about 
electric cars. They are generally more expensive. We are going 
to have so much lithium batteries that we won't know what to do 
with it. It is going to be a huge problem. We are having to buy 
so much from China with regard to rare earth metals. But you 
can't make a vehicle without some fossil fuels.
    And then you have the problem of--if you want to plug in 
your car, as Thomas Massie pointed out, to charge it, it is the 
equivalent of plugging in 17 refrigerators. If everybody just 
has one car, we are going to have blackouts, brownouts all over 
the country. That is not good for people that barely are 
getting by.
    And let me just point out when this Committee, the Majority 
of this Committee, starts thinking about trying to intimidate 
people into not bragging about the benefits of their products, 
Ayn Rand said, ``When you see that in order to produce you need 
to obtain permission from men who produce nothing, when you see 
that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in 
favors, when you see that people get richer by graft and by 
pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against 
them, but protect them against you, when you see corruption 
being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice, you may 
know that your society is doomed.''
    And Natan Sharansky was in prison, in a gulag in Russia for 
speaking up. He makes similar related comments. So, it concerns 
me greatly for the future of America, and especially for the 
poor, for the lower middle class, that are going to be so 
harmed by this Administration's energy policy. We need to back 
up and not try to intimidate witnesses.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
    With that, with no further Members waiting to question, we 
will begin to wrap up. I will offer my closing statement.
    Today, we have heard about the ways that PR firms are paid 
to engage in unethical tactics that intimidate and silence 
Americans who are exercising their rights to support actions 
that combat climate change.
    I am looking forward to hearing more tomorrow at the 
hearing about oil company profits and climate disinformation 
that is being held by my colleague, Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, 
in the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
    But for all that we have seen here today, I know there is 
more, and it is worse. We initiated the subpoena process for 
FTI Consulting, which has one of the worst reputations in the 
business. The negotiations are ongoing. The trajectory is, 
sadly, not good.
    What are they trying to hide? Is it their creation of fake 
grassroots groups for their clients to hide behind?
    Was it the creation of fake social media profiles to track 
the plans of activist groups, or is there something worse?
    The harder FTI Consulting fights, the more it appears that 
they have a lot to lose by having their tactics exposed through 
oversight. We are just getting started.
    I want to close by thanking my colleague, Mr. Hice, my 
Republican colleague, Mr. Hice, for identifying the report, the 
Role of Public Relations Firms in Preventing Action on Climate 
Change that the Committee has released. And I encourage people 
who are interested in this topic to review the report and, in 
particular, the documentary evidence of unethical tactics and 
climate disinformation that make up the bulk of the report.
    With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for any 
closing statement he may wish to make.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just keep my 
comments brief.
    I think it is important for the American public to hear 
what is going on in this Committee hearing today. What this is 
is yet another attempt to silence the viewpoints from one side 
of the aisle from being brought forward. Firms that promote 
different products and entities have been around since our 
country was first created. And we all, on a regular basis, hear 
about the newest product, about the greatest product, about the 
new inventions that are coming forth, and that is throughout 
all industries.
    And I don't think that the oil and gas industry is any 
different. I think that, when we start trying to utilize this 
body to silence one side of a discussion or another side of the 
discussion, what we do is suppress the very innovation and 
technology that has brought us to this place in history, that 
has given us the ability to utilize so many of our resources, 
and to be able to develop them in a more environmentally sound 
method, to be able to make sure that our labor standards are 
the highest and greatest in the world. And by trying to keep 
some side of the discussion suppressed, or intimidate them from 
bringing their message forward, I think, is always a bad idea, 
that more information is better for all of us.
    So, I do appreciate the hearing, and I would yield back. 
Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you, and I want to thank the witnesses 
for their valuable testimony and the Members for their 
questions.
    The members of this Committee may have some additional 
questions for witnesses, and we will ask that you respond to 
those in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 
submit witness questions within 3 business days following the 
hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Porter

Screen captures of protesters following signature gatherers in Colorado 
                    for the Proposition 112 campaign


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Leaked e-mail from Anadarko, a major oil company in the


      Colorado area, regarding a hotline to report the location of


        signature gatherers to deploy protesters to the location


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 ExxonMobil ad conflating ``decarbonizing heavy industry'' with 
                             carbon capture


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S 
                            OFFICIAL FILES]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Porter

  --  Committee Report entitled, ``The Role of Public Relations 
            Firms in Preventing Action on Climate Change''

  --  ``The Power Of'' ad from the American Petroleum Institute