[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 8802, ``PUBLIC LANDS AND
WATERS CLIMATE LEADER-
SHIP ACT OF 2022''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC 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
48-642 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair
PETE STAUBER, MN, Ranking Member
A. Donald McEachin, VA Yvette Herrell, NM
Mike Levin, CA Doug Lamborn, CO
Katie Porter, CA Garret Graves, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Betty McCollum, MN Connie Conway, CA
Jared Huffman, CA Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Debbie Dingell, MI
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 20, 2022...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Ahtuangaruak, Rosemary, Mayor, Nuiqsut, Alaska............... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Questions submitted for the record....................... 25
Dessler, Andrew, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences; Director,
Texas Center for Climate Studies, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas..................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Hopper, Abigail Ross, President and CEO, Solar Energy
Industries Association, Washington, DC..................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Stein, Kenny, Policy Director, Institute for Energy Research,
Washington, DC............................................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Questions submitted for the record....................... 29
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Alaska Delegation, Letter to Sec. Haaland, dated September
16, 2022................................................... 45
HECHO, Letter of Support for H.R. 8802, dated September 20,
2022....................................................... 47
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
Letters of Support for the Willow Project................ 48
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 8802, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR AND THE CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO ALIGN MANAGEMENT OF
PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS WITH THE PRESIDENT'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
REDUCTION GOALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS
CLIMATE LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2022''
----------
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan S.
Lowenthal [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Porter, DeGette,
McCollum, Huffman, Dingell, Grijalva, Peltola; Stauber, Graves,
and Tiffany.
Dr. Lowenthal. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. To everyone who is joining us in
person and remotely, welcome to the Subcommittee. I had really
hoped and planned on chairing the Subcommittee in person, but
yesterday I spent a significant amount of time with a colleague
who tested positively for COVID-19 this morning.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, we are having trouble hearing you
with your microphone. It is in and out; I am not sure what is
wrong.
Dr. Lowenthal. What can I do about that?
Hello? Can you hear me now?
Mr. Stauber. You are very faint.
Dr. Lowenthal. I will make it louder. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Stauber. Yes, that is better.
Dr. Lowenthal. OK. Good morning, everyone joining us in
person and remotely. I planned on being with everyone in the
hearing room this morning. But unfortunately, yesterday I spent
a significant amount of time with----
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, your microphone is still not
working correctly.
[Pause.]
Dr. Lowenthal. All right. If it is not working, I am going
to change it to this one. Let's see if this one is any better.
Give me a second.
[Pause.]
Dr. Lowenthal. All right. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Stauber. That sounds good.
Ms. DeGette. Much better, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. All right. We are going to try
this again. I am just getting the hang of this. So, the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to
order.
Good morning to everyone for joining us, both in person and
remotely. Welcome to the Subcommittee.
I was really looking forward to being in the Subcommittee
room this morning with everyone. But yesterday, I spent a
significant amount of time directly with a colleague who this
morning tested positive for COVID-19. So, I think, out of an
abundance of caution, and hoping not to be infected myself and
also not wanting to potentially pass it on to anyone else, I am
going to do this remotely.
First, Ranking Member Stauber, it is great to see you
again. Thank you for attending our hearing on offshore wind in
Morro Bay. I thought it was a very informative hearing.
The Subcommittee today is meeting to hear testimony on
Chairman Grijalva's bill, H.R. 8802, which is the Public Lands
and Waters Climate Leadership Act of 2022, of which I am a co-
sponsor.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member, or their designee. This will allow us to hear from the
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedule.
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 at the close of
the hearing, whichever comes first.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
As described in the hearing 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, like I have, should inform the Committee staff
immediately, which I believe I did.
With that, I am going to begin my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Dr. Lowenthal. Earlier this month, my home state of
California experienced one of the worst heat waves ever
recorded. Over the past year, we have seen devastating floods,
which have washed through Appalachia. We have seen massive
wildfires rage across the West. We have seen extreme droughts,
which have reduced water levels to dangerous and record-
breaking lows.
The climate crisis is here, and it poses an existential
threat to American life as we know it now. Our economy, our
national security, and the health and well-being of all people,
wildlife, lands, oceans, and future generations are at stake.
Thankfully, under the leadership of the Biden
administration, we have made progress over the past 2 years.
Earlier in his term, the President set aggressive but necessary
emissions reduction targets. To stave off the worst impact of
climate change, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
2005 levels by at least half by 2030. We must achieve 100
percent carbon-free electricity by 2035, and the entire U.S.
economy needs to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century.
Reaching these targets will, without a doubt, necessitate
an all-of-government approach. We need to transform our
transportation sector, our industries, our buildings, how we
produce food, and, of course, how we generate electricity.
And we are well on our way; Congress has worked with the
Biden administration to achieve major policy victories and
invest in clean energy, conservation, and environmental justice
communities. Just this Congress, we have enacted the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; the CHIPS and Science
Act; and the Inflation Reduction Act, which is the most
significant climate law in U.S. history.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that, because
of the Inflation Reduction Act's investment, America is on
track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the
year 2030. That is incredible progress, but we still need to
implement these laws and reduce our emissions even further.
Luckily, our public lands and waters can help.
Historically, these lands have accounted for nearly a quarter
of all of U.S. annual carbon emissions because of the massive
amount of coal, oil, and gas extraction they support.
While Democrats on this Committee recognize this for the
problem and the challenge that it is, we also see the
opportunity for our public lands and oceans to be part of the
solution to climate change.
H.R. 8802 requires the Interior Department and the Forest
Service to take the next step in combating climate change by
aligning our public lands and waters with the Biden
administration's ambitious emission reduction goals. Chairman
Grijalva's bill prohibits new fossil fuel leasing and
permitting until the Interior Secretary demonstrates that
emissions from additional oil, gas, and coal development are
consistent with the Biden administration's 2030, 2035, and 2050
climate targets.
The Department of the Interior has a duty to the public to
demonstrate whether fossil fuel development on U.S. public
lands and waters is undermining the country's climate goals.
H.R. 8802 ensures the Department lives up to this
responsibility, so that Congress and all Americans can stay
informed by the Administration's progress. This bill requires
DOI and the Forest Service to develop, publish, implement, and
regularly update a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy.
This requirement will result in the development of an energy
plan for our public lands that deals with the threat of climate
change.
For months, my Republican colleagues have called for the
Biden administration to develop a comprehensive strategy for
our shared energy challenges. This bill would require just
that.
Our public lands and oceans can and must be a solution to
climate change. But right now, they are still a substantial
source of carbon pollution.
H.R. 8802 advances a long-term approach to managing oil,
gas, and coal development over the coming years in a manner
that helps us transition toward a clean energy future and stave
off climate disaster.
I thank Chair Grijalva for introducing this bill, and I am
looking forward to today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lowenthal follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Earlier this month, my home state of California experienced one of
the worst heat waves ever recorded.
Over the past year, we've seen devastating floods wash through
Appalachia, massive wildfires rage across the West, and extreme
droughts reduce water levels to dangerous and record-breaking lows.
The climate crisis is here, and it poses an existential threat to
American life as we know it. Our economy, national security, and the
health and well-being of all people, wildlife, lands, oceans, and
future generations are at stake.
Thankfully, under the leadership of the Biden administration, we've
made progress over the past 2 years.
Early into his term, the President set aggressive but necessary
emissions reduction targets.
To stave off the worst impacts of climate change, we need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by at least half by 2030. We
must achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035, and the
entire U.S. economy needs to reach net-zero emissions by midcentury.
Reaching these targets will, without a doubt, necessitate an all-
of-government approach.
We need to transform our transportation sector, our industries and
buildings, how we produce food, and of course, how we generate
electricity.
And we are well on our way.
Congress has worked with the Biden administration to achieve major
policy victories and invest in clean energy, conservation, and
environmental justice communities.
Just this Congress, we have enacted the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction
Act, the most significant climate law in U.S. history.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that because of the
Inflation Reduction Act's investments, America is on track to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030.
That's incredible progress, but we still need to implement these
laws and reduce our emissions even further.
Luckily, our public lands and waters can help.
Historically, these lands have accounted for nearly a quarter of
all U.S. annual carbon emissions because of the massive amounts of
coal, oil, and gas extraction they support.
While Democrats on this Committee recognize this for the problem
and challenge it is, we also see the opportunity for our public lands
and oceans to be part of the solution to climate change.
H.R. 8802 requires the Interior Department and Forest Service to
take the next step in combating climate change by aligning our public
lands and waters with the Biden administration's ambitious emission
reduction goals.
Chair Grijalva's bill prohibits new Federal fossil fuel leasing and
permitting until the Interior Secretary demonstrates that emissions
from additional oil, gas, and coal development are consistent with the
Biden administration's 2030, 2035, and 2050 climate targets.
The Department of the Interior has a duty to the public to
demonstrate whether fossil fuel development on U.S. public lands and
waters is undermining the country's climate goals.
H.R. 8802 ensures the department lives up to this responsibility.
And so that Congress and all Americans can stay informed of the
administration's progress, the bill requires DOI and the Forest Service
to develop, publish, implement, and regularly update a greenhouse gas
emissions reduction strategy.
This requirement will result in the development of an energy plan
for our public lands that deals with the threat of climate change.
For months, my Republican colleagues have called for the Biden
administration to develop a comprehensive strategy for our shared
energy challenges. This bill would require just that.
Our public lands and oceans can and must be a solution to climate
change, but right now, they are still a substantial source of carbon
pollution.
H.R. 8802 advances a long-term approach to managing oil, gas, and
coal development over the coming years in a manner that helps us
transition toward a clean-energy future and stave off climate disaster.
I thank Chair Grijalva for introducing this bill, and I look
forward to today's discussion.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. With that, I now recognize Ranking Member
Stauber for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chairman Lowenthal. It is
hard to believe that this is likely our last Energy and Mineral
Resources hearing before November.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me and
our staff members a couple of weeks ago to Morro Bay,
California for an insightful hearing on the possibilities of
and challenges facing offshore wind.
Today, we are holding a legislative hearing on recently
introduced legislation that triples down on the Democrat
policies that sent energy prices sky-high for Americans.
In the first hours of this Administration, Joe Biden banned
oil and gas leasing in our Federal waters and killed the
Keystone XL Pipeline, starting a domino effect that made this
past summer the most expensive driving season in memory, and
now promises a cold, expensive winter.
The number of executive orders from on high also set out
unrealistic and unachievable emissions standards straight out
of the playbook of radical, anti-American energy groups, where
the United States is supposed to reduce emissions by more than
50 percent by 2050. And today, H.R. 8802 literally bans the
Forest Service Chief and the Interior Secretary from leasing
until those arbitrary targets are met.
You heard me right. Democrats right here and now are again
proposing to ban oil and gas development at a time when energy
prices are higher than they have ever been. And demand for
energy will rise in both the short and long term.
In the short term, Minnesotans are already preparing for a
long, cold, and expensive winter. Sixty-six percent of homes in
Minnesota are heated with natural gas furnaces. Home energy
prices, and especially natural gas, are way up. And don't take
my word for it, ask anyone from northern Minnesota who is
seeing their energy bills skyrocket while the temperatures
plummet well below zero.
To my Democrat colleagues here, it might be easy to say,
``hey, just throw on a sweater and turn down the thermostat a
degree or two.'' In my district, affording your energy bill is
a quality-of-life issue. My constituents don't deserve to be
punished for heating their homes this winter because
congressional Democrats and Joe Biden want to appease their
radical, anti-American energy base and further choke our
domestic oil and gas production.
In the long term, the Energy Information Administration
estimates that energy demand will increase by 50 percent by the
year 2050. Therefore, Democrats on this Committee are moving
legislation that further restricts our development when a non-
partisan energy tracking database projects huge spikes in
energy demand.
Instead, let's take a moment on the Subcommittee and
acknowledge reality. The United States of America has led the
world in reducing emissions, and it is not even close. And we
did so with the proliferation of natural gas development for
utility-scale use. Our emissions, in fact, declined during
President Trump's tenure, when we became a net exporter of oil
and gas.
My point here is that we can reduce emissions and produce
American energy to meet our needs and keep up a high quality of
life.
And last, this bill conflicts with the requirements in
current law. The bill clearly states that it ``shall not
preempt or alter other requirements for lease sales and fossil
fuel permits.''
On the other hand, the Mineral Leasing Act clearly requires
onshore, quarterly lease sales. And the misnamed Inflation
Reduction Act prevents the Department of the Interior from
issuing new leases for other energy technologies, unless recent
oil and gas lease sales have been held.
This is an unserious bill. Clearly, Democrats need to toss
a bone to their most radical, anti-American energy supporters
after holding their noses and voting with Senator Manchin. So,
this is what we have today. And it is, therefore, disappointing
to me that renewable industry groups are playing along and
offering support for unserious legislation.
We do hope to work together with these organizations in the
near future on issues like streamlining transmission
regulations. But this, admittedly, is not inspiring.
In closing, this Administration has set out from day one by
executive fiat to ban domestic energy production, and they have
succeeded as the Administration has leased the fewest acres
since World War II.
[Chart.]
Mr. Stauber. And that is behind me.
And what is the result? Skyrocketing energy prices,
crippling inflation, and expensive and cold winters.
To address these crises, Democrats in Congress introduced
legislation codifying these Biden failures into law.
I, therefore, look forward to exposing this for what it is,
this hearing. And I look forward to the witness testimony.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member Stauber. Now I am
going to introduce today's witnesses.
Dr. Andrew Dessler is a professor of atmospheric sciences
and the Director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at
Texas A&M University.
I am going to now yield to Congresswoman Peltola to
introduce our next witness.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Subcommittee Chair Lowenthal. Good
morning, thank you for the opportunity to introduce one of
Alaska's community leaders.
This is just my seventh day on the job, and I am finding my
calendar has 25 hours of meetings and events stuffed into a 24-
hour day. I am so sorry for appearing before you and your
Committee by video today.
As the Subcommittee hears H.R. 8802, the Public Lands and
Waters Climate Leadership Act of 2022, you will hear heartfelt
testimony from Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, the Mayor of Nuiqsut, a
community of about 500 people. Mayor Ahtuangaruak cares deeply
about everyone in the community, their culture, their access to
traditional subsistence foods, and most certainly their health.
She is a graduate of the University of Washington Physician
Assistant Program and received an honorary doctorate from
Oberlin College in recognition of her work addressing health
impacts within her community from development.
She also shares her knowledge far beyond Nuiqsut and the
state by serving on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
Air Act Advisory Committee. And while the Mayor and I may
disagree on some issues of oil and gas development in the area,
I wholeheartedly agree with her commitment to protecting her
people, the lands, and the wildlife so essential to Nuiqsut, as
does the oil and gas industry that operates on Alaska's North
Slope.
I believe we can do both, protecting our communities while
responsibly producing the oil that is so important to our state
and so important to the nation, including the proposed Willow
Project.
Nuiqsut is about 18 miles south of the Colville River
headwaters at the Beaufort Sea. The river delta has
traditionally been a gathering and trading place for the
Inupiat people and a productive source for subsistence hunting
and fishing. Knowing how important subsistence foods are to the
residents, I thank the Mayor for her dedication to ensuring the
healthy life of her community.
I am honored to have been able to introduce Mayor
Ahtuangaruak today, and I look forward to working with her in
the future, and with the Subcommittee, to ensure Alaska
communities can prosper safely, as they have done for
generations, and I expect that they will continue to do for
generations to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Congresswoman Peltola.
Our third witness is Ms. Abigail Ross Hopper, the President
and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
And our fourth witness will be Mr. Kenny Stein, who is the
Policy Director for the Institute for Energy Research.
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. But your entire
statement will, as I said, appear in the hearing record. I
recommend that Members and witnesses joining remotely use the
grid view so that they may pin the timer on their screen.
After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
yourself--which I frequently forget to do--to avoid any
inadvertent background noise.
I will allow the entire panel to testify before any
questioning of the witnesses. I now call upon Dr. Dessler for 5
minutes of testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW DESSLER, PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES;
AND DIRECTOR, TEXAS CENTER FOR CLIMATE STUDIES, TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Dr. Dessler. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the threat of climate change with you. My name is
Andrew Dessler, and I am a professor of atmospheric sciences
and the Director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at
Texas A&M University, located in beautiful College Station,
Texas.
Let me begin with a scientific basis for climate change:
first, the climate is warming; second, the scientific
community's best estimate is that all of this warming is caused
by human activities, mainly the combustion of fossil fuels;
third, we are on track to warm the planet in 2100 by about 5
degrees Fahrenheit above the Earth's temperature in the 19th
century.
For the global average, this is a huge amount of warming.
Although you may personally experience much larger temperature
changes over a day or over the seasons, these large local
variations you experience cancel with opposite variations in
other parts of the world. As a result, the global average
temperature is very stable.
To put 5 degrees Fahrenheit of global average warming into
context, realize that the warming that transitioned us out of
the last Ice Age and into our present warm interglacial period
was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In other words, a 10-degree
Fahrenheit change in global average temperature is the
difference between a world covered by ice and today's world.
Thus, predicted warming of 5 degrees is half of an ice age.
This should compel our attention.
It may be enough to significantly remake the surface of the
planet. In fact, 2 degrees of warming that we have already
experienced over the past 150 years is already turbocharging
severe weather events and turning them into catastrophes.
Examples include extreme precipitation events such as Hurricane
Harvey, the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, and the ongoing
aridification of the U.S. Southwest.
To be clear, climate change does not, in and of itself,
cause these events. However, a new field of science, extreme
event attribution, allows us to determine that climate change
is making many of these events more severe and destructive than
they otherwise would be. And we can be certain that the worst
is yet to come.
In the non-linear world in which we live, every bit of
warming produces more damage than the previous bit. Your
intuition should confirm this. In a rain event, the first inch
of rain typically does not cause any damage. However, the
twentieth inch of rain can be very destructive. If climate
change adds a twenty-first inch of rain, that could turn a
severe event into a catastrophe.
To the extent that we don't reduce emissions to avoid
future climate change, we must adapt to the changing climate.
No one really knows how expensive this will be. Economists are
split on whether this will cost a few percent of GDP, something
that may not be too burdensome, or wipe out much of our wealth.
One thing is abundantly clear, though: most of the world's
inhabitants do not have the resources to address the impacts of
extreme weather, even today. For example, if warming
temperatures require us to air condition large swaths of the
United States that did not previously require it, who is going
to pay for that? Installing air conditioning can cost thousands
of dollars, and many people simply do not have spare resources
to do that.
Luckily, we have the capability to avoid much of the
projected warming. The price of climate-safe wind and solar
energy has been dropping rapidly over the past decade. Solar
has dropped 90 percent, onshore wind has dropped 70 percent,
and batteries are presently experiencing similar price drops.
Because of this, the United States can largely build a carbon-
free grid by the mid 2030s that produces power at prices lower
than we pay today.
I should note that fossil fuels have other problems besides
climate change. Air pollution from fossil fuels kills millions
of people every year around the world. And I know many of the
members of this Committee are concerned about energy security.
Let me be clear: fossil fuels are bad for our national
security. Oil and natural gas are globally-priced commodities.
So, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of natural gas
spiked here in the United States, despite the United States
being a major exporter of natural gas. This is an example of
why we will never be able to drill our way to energy security.
As long as we rely on globally-priced fossil fuels, we will be
subject to political machinations of countries like Russia and
Saudi Arabia. It is, therefore, fortunate that we can
economically transition away from fossil fuels today.
In conclusion, we are on the brink of potentially
calamitous climate impacts. However, we also have the tools to
solve the problem. The only question is which of these paths we
will choose. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dessler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Andrew E. Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric
Sciences; Director, Texas Center for Climate Studies,
Texas A&M University
Climate Change Is an Urgent Threat
Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be with you to discuss
the threat of climate change. My name is Dr. Andrew Dessler, and I am a
professor of atmospheric sciences and the director of the Texas Center
for Climate Studies at Texas A&M University, located in College
Station, Texas. I have been studying the atmosphere since 1988 and I
have published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature on climate
change, including studies of the physics of the climate system.
In my testimony today, I will review what I believe are the most
relevant facts about climate science that need to be understood in
order to appropriately evaluate all of the policy options available to
respond to the threat of climate change.
First, the climate is warming. The Earth in the midst of an overall
increase in the temperature of the lower atmosphere and ocean spanning
many decades. Figure 1 shows that the Earth's average temperature has
increased about 2+F since the 19th century. This may not sound like
much, but later in my testimony I'll explain why this is important.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 1. Global annual average temperature change in +F; the
gray line is the annual average, and the blue line is a smoothed time
series. Data are from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Analysis,
downloaded from http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_
Ocean_summary.txt.
Second, the scientific community's best estimate is that all of
this warming is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases caused by human activities, mainly from the combustion of fossil
fuels. This conclusion comes from on several lines of evidence:
Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 415 parts
per million today. Methane levels have more than doubled
over this period, and many other greenhouse gases are
increasing (nitrous oxide, halocarbons).
The physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood,
and it predicts that this increase in greenhouse gases will
warm the climate.
The actual amount of warming over the last century roughly
is in accord with theory and climate models.
Reconstructions of paleoclimate data over the last 60
million years show an association between changes in
atmospheric carbon dioxide and changes in the climate.
Finally, there is no credible alternative explanation for
the recent warming other than an enhanced greenhouse effect
due to human activities. There is no evidence that natural
variability can explain the warming.
Third, we are on track to warm the planet about 5+F (3+C) above the
Earth's temperature in the 19th century by 2100. Such predictions come
from computer simulations of the climate, generally referred to as
climate models. While criticizing climate models is a popular pastime
in the public debate, climate models have shown great skill in
predicting many aspects of the climate system. For example, predictions
made in the 1970s and 1980s of how much the Earth would warm have
closely tracked the actual warming (one prediction is shown in Figure
2), providing high confidence in predictions of future warming.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 2. Predictions of future warming (orange dots) from
Broecker (1975). Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced
Global Warming? Science, 189(4201), 460-463, doi: 10.1126/
science.189.4201.460. Observations (blue line) from GISTEMP (Hansen et
al. (2010). Global surface temperature change. Reviews of Geophysics,
48, doi: 10.1029/2010rg000345).
Fourth, warming of 5+F is a momentous amount of warming. Although
you may experience much larger temperature changes over a day or
season, such large, local variations tend to cancel when averaged over
the entire globe. As a result, the global average temperature has small
year-to-year variations, which you can see in Figures 1 and 2.
To put 5+F of warming into context, realize that the warming that
transitioned us out of the last ice age and into our present warm
interglacial period was about 10+F. That warming radically altered the
planet, removing ice sheets thousands of feet thick that covered much
of North America and Northern Europe and raising sea level by 300 feet.
It also drastically changed ecosystems and species around the world.
Thus, predicted warming for this century of 5+F should compel our
attention. In fact, the 2+F of warming over the past 150 years (Fig. 1)
is already turbocharging severe weather events and turning them into
catastrophes. Examples include extreme precipitation events such as
Hurricane Harvey, the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, and the
aridification of the U.S. Southwest. To be clear, climate change does
not, in and of itself, cause these events. However, a new field of
science, extreme event attribution, allows us to determine that climate
change is making many of these events more severe and destructive than
they would otherwise be.
These impacts are not surprising; in fact, they were predicted
decades ago, along with many other impacts, such as the melting the
Arctic and acidifying the ocean. And we can be certain that the worst
is yet to come: impacts of the next 3+F of warming will be far worse
than the impacts of the 2+F we have already experienced. To understand
why future warming will be so bad, let me introduce the concept of non-
linearity. In a linear system, things change in straight line. If
climate impacts are linear, then every 0.1+C of warming would give you
the same amount of damage.
In the non-linear world in which we live, however, every 0.1+F of
warming produces more damage than the previous 0.1+F. For example, in a
rain event, the first inch of rain typically does not cause any damage,
however the 20th inch of rain can be catastrophic. The reason is that
our society is carefully adapted to the typical range of weather we
experience and it's only when the weather departs these conditions that
catastrophic impacts can occur.
In other words, individuals and communities are impacted by weather
events when they pass thresholds built into the system. These
thresholds are designed into a system when assumptions about the
climate are built into the system. For example, when you build a
bridge, you build in the capability for the bridge to expand or
contract in response to a range of temperatures that you expect the
bridge to experience. If the climate varies outside that range, the
bridge may not preform to its design capability and may need to be
closed.
With 2+F of global-average warming, we are departing the climatic
conditions that much of 20th century infrastructure was designed for.
Every 0.1+F of warming will push us past an ever-increasing number of
these thresholds in the climate system and the economic and social
disruptions from these will be substantial.
To the extent that we don't reduce emissions to avoid future
climate change, we must adapt to the changing climate. No one really
knows how expensive this will be: economists are split on whether this
will cost a few percent of GDP, something that would not be too
burdensome, or wipe out much of our wealth. As Nobel Prize winning
economist William Nordhaus said, ``Technological change raised humans
out of Stone Age living standards. Climate change threatens, in the
most extreme scenarios, to return us economically whence we came.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/nordhaus-
lecture.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing is abundantly clear, though: most of the world's
inhabitants do not have resources to address the impacts of climate
change. For example, if warming temperatures require us to air
condition large swaths of the U.S. that did not previously require it
(e.g., Seattle), who's going to pay for that? Installing air
conditioning can cost thousands of dollars and many people simply do
not have spare resources to do that. Then there is the cost of
electricity to run the equipment.
Luckily, we still have the capability to avoid much of the
projected future warming. The price of climate-safe wind and solar
energy has been dropping rapidly over the past decade--solar has
dropped 90% and on-shore wind has dropped 70%--and batteries are
presently experiencing rapid price drops. Due to these price drops, the
U.S. can build a largely carbon-free grid by the mid-2030s that
produces power at prices lower than we pay today.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Berkeley 2035 report, https://www.2035report.com/
electricity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, we are on the brink of potentially calamitous
climate impacts. However, we also have the tools to solve the problem.
The only question is which of these paths we choose.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Dessler.
Dr. Ahtuangaruak, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and I
hope I pronounced your name correctly.
[Pause.]
Dr. Lowenthal. All right, Dr. Ahtuangaruak is having
technical problems, and we will return to her right after our
next witness. We are now going to hear from Ms. Hopper.
You are recognized for 5 minutes of testimony. Welcome to
this Committee.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL ROSS HOPPER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SOLAR
ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Hopper. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chairman
Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and the members of the
Subcommittee. I really appreciate you inviting me here to
discuss the important issues around renewable energy deployment
on public lands.
I am actually in California right now, at our largest
annual conference. I heard this morning there are over 26,000
of us here talking about solar and storage. So, this is a
timely point for the discussion.
My name is Abigail Rose Hopper. I am the President and CEO
of the Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA. We are the
national trade association for solar energy and energy storage,
comprised of over 1,000 member companies representing all parts
of the solar and storage supply chain, from manufacturers to
installers.
With the recent passage of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, the solar and
storage industry will lead the way in combating the climate
crisis. Increasing solar and energy storage deployment
throughout the nation is vital, and public lands under the
jurisdiction of this Subcommittee are important resources to
help our country reach the goal of a carbon pollution free
power sector by 2035.
SEIA has long advocated for improving Federal land
management policies to improve strategic siting and permitting
for solar and storage projects. With the right policies in
place, public lands can be used to help create jobs, meet
energy needs, and reduce carbon emissions.
The Biden administration has made a goal of siting 25
gigawatts of solar on public lands by 2025. That is just 3
years from now. Meeting this goal is essential to achieve the
deployment necessary to reduce carbon emissions and meet our
country's energy needs.
Work is ongoing to reassess Federal land that can be
developed for solar energy storage, and update staffing and
policies around competitive bidding and rental rates that are
necessary to provide solar developers the business certainty
needed to invest in projects on Federal land. And this work is
well worth it.
Supporting more solar and storage development on U.S.
public lands will generate enormous economic employment and
health benefits for local communities, states, and the entire
nation. However, progress is slow, and it will take an all-
hands-on-deck, multi-jurisdictional approach to improve.
Since 2010, BLM has fully permitted 18 solar PV facilities,
100 megawatts or greater in capacity, including over 1,500
megawatts of capacity since January 2021 alone. There are 4.9
gigawatts of projects under development on BLM lands,
representing around 7 percent of the known utility-scale
project pipeline, a substantial increase in recent years.
Together, these figures tell an incredible story: solar
development on BLM lands is increasing and permitting timelines
are shrinking, likely leading to additional Federal development
planning. And it should be noted that these figures represent a
snapshot in time prior to the passage of the Inflation
Reduction Act.
The biggest obstacle to building solar on public lands is a
lack of approved areas for leasing, not necessarily permitting
timelines or environmental reviews. Of the other 5,500
megawatts permitted since January 2021, over half are located
on lands outside of the solar energy zones. There is a clear
policy lesson to be drawn here: permitting agencies should
continue to focus on opening up additional Federal lands to
solar development.
We believe the Public Lands and Waters Climate Leadership
Act will advance this priority, and we urge policymakers to
immediately expand the universe of Federal lands available for
solar leasing in order to harness the full potential of the
Inflation Reduction Act.
Accessibility of solar and storage for all Americans is of
paramount importance to our industry. Right now, 250,000
Americans work in our industry. Over the next decade, solar and
storage jobs will grow to over 538,000 Americans by 2032, and
that will reflect the diversity and talent of our country, with
high-quality clean energy jobs in every congressional district.
Investing in education and job opportunities for growing
industries like solar can help spur economic growth in
communities across the country, including those impacted by a
Federal presence. Solar and energy storage is poised to grow
exponentially over the next decade. To meet the President's
climate goals, coordination across the Federal agencies and
strategic use of public lands can bring jobs and economic
development to federally impacted communities.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hopper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abigail Ross Hopper, President and CEO, Solar
Energy Industries Association
Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber and the members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss the important
issues around renewable energy and public lands.
I am Abigail Ross Hopper, President and CEO of the Solar Energy
Industries Association (SEIA). SEIA is the national trade association
for solar energy and energy storage made up of 1,000 member companies
across the country representing all parts of the solar and storage
supply chain from manufacturers to installers. Today, 250,000 Americans
work in our industry. Over the next decade, thanks to investments made
by this Congress and companies across the country, that number will
grow to over 538,000 Americans that reflect the diversity and talent of
our country in high-quality clean energy jobs in every congressional
district.
With the recent passage of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs
Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the solar industry
will lead the way in combatting the climate crisis. Increasing solar
deployment throughout the nation is vital and public lands offer
important resources to reach the Administration's climate goal of a
carbon pollution free power sector by 2035. For this reason, SEIA
supports H.R. 8802, the Public Lands and Waters Climate Leadership Act,
which would require the Secretary of the Interior and the Chief of the
Forest Service to align management of public lands and waters with the
President's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
SEIA has long advocated for improving federal land management
policies to improve strategic siting and permitting for solar projects.
With the right policies in place, public lands can be used to help
create jobs, meet energy needs, and reduce carbon emissions.
Provisions in H.R. 8802 may also incentivize dual use solar
projects, such as those incorporating agrivoltaics and livestock
grazing. We also strongly support provisions in H.R. 8802 that would
expressly require input from environmental justice communities. Equity
and environmental justice are core values of SEIA's mission. Our energy
transition must be based on principles of justice and inclusion.
Today, I will share how important strong public land policies are
to meeting this critical moment and how public lands can be used to
help create jobs, meet energy needs, and reduce carbon emissions.
Solar is the Dominant Source of New Electricity Generation and Will
Continue to Grow
Through the first half of 2022, despite challenges with supply
chains and trade policies, the solar industry accounted for 39 percent
of all new electricity-generating capacity. As the chart below
outlines, since 2019 solar has been the leading technology for new
electricity generation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-
report-2022-q3.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsAs I shared earlier, this growth in solar deployment has also
consistently supported job growth. SEIA estimates that as IIJA and IRA
are implemented, an additional 544 GW of solar will be deployed, more
than four times the amount of solar installed over the last 10 years.
It also means hundreds of billions of investments in the US economy
over the next decade, which will turn the solar industry into an annual
$87 billion industry supporting hundreds of thousands of families
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
across the country.
To meet the Biden Administration's goal of 100% clean energy by
2035, we estimate that the solar industry will need to have installed
roughly 1,495 GW of solar by 2035 (equivalent to 40% of electricity
generation from solar). Policies in the IRA get us over 60% of the way
to that goal. Deploying quickly is critical to avoiding the worst
impacts of climate change.
Public Lands Have a Major Role to Play in Deploying Solar and Storage
The Biden Administration has made a goal of siting 25 GW of solar
on public lands by 2025. Meeting this goal is essential for achieving
the deployment necessary to reduce carbon emissions and meet energy
needs. According to the Bureau of Land Management, federal lands offer
high-quality insolation--or sun quality--particularly in the American
Southwest.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-04/
BLM%20Public%20Land%20Renewable%
20Energy%20FY21%20Report%20to%20Congress%20v4%20508_0.pdf.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsSupporting more solar and storage development on U.S. public
lands will generate enormous economic, employment, and health benefits
for local communities, states, and the entire nation.
Work is ongoing to reassess federal land that can be developed for
solar energy and update staffing and policies around competitive
bidding and rental rates that are necessary to provide developers the
business certainty needed to invest in projects on federal land.
However, this work is well worth it. Supporting more solar and storage
development on U.S. public lands will generate enormous economic,
employment, and health benefits for local communities, states, and the
entire country.
In some cases, major projects are already coming online. For
example, EDF Renewable Energy recently announced that the Palen Solar
Energy Project built on BLM land in California was fully operating and
457 megawatts and 50 megawatts of battery storage are being generated.
The size of this project produces enough electricity to power 116,000
homes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-department-
announces-full-operation-palen-solar-project-california.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects like this one are at the forefront of what is possible.
Using federal resources--public land--to facilitate the development and
deployment of solar and energy storage to the benefit of local
communities and the climate. As a country, we will need many more
permits approved on many more projects like this one to meet the
Administration's goals.
Coordination and Planning Around a Shared Goal
To combat the global climate crisis, we need an all-hands on-deck
approach. Solar and storage deployment on public lands will play a key
role in meeting carbon emission reduction targets.
The solar and storage industry continues its efforts to work
alongside Congress and agencies to address issues around deployment,
and over time, we have seen some improvements. The Energy Act of 2020
made key improvements in interagency cooperation and problem solving to
address existing renewable projects and streamline the permitting
process for renewable projects. According to the Bureau of Land
Management's 2021 Public Land Renewable Energy report, work is ongoing
to reassess federal land that can be developed for solar energy and
update staffing and policies around competitive bidding and rental
rates. However, more resources are needed if we are going to meet the
rapid deployment goals necessary.
Further refinements, such as aligning public lands and waters
management with the Biden administration's emission reduction goals
through a regular planning process will help underscore the importance
of a cross-governmental effort to site and permit solar energy more
expeditiously to speed the U.S. transition to a clean-energy future.
Since 2010, BLM has fully permitted 18 solar PV facilities 100 MW
or greater in capacity, including over 1,500 MW of capacity since
January 2021 alone. There are 4.9 GW of projects under development on
BLM lands, representing around 7% of the known utility-scale project
pipeline, a substantial increase over recent years. Together, these
figures tell an incredible story: solar development on BLM lands is
increasing and permitting timelines are shrinking, likely leading to
additional federal development planning. And it should be noted that
these figures represent a snapshot in time prior to the passage of the
IRA.
The biggest obstacle to building solar on public lands is lack of
approved areas for leasing, not permitting timelines or environmental
reviews. Of the over 1,500 MW permitted since January 2021, over half
is located on lands outside of the Solar Energy Zones. There is a clear
policy lesson to be drawn here: permitting agencies should continue to
focus on opening up additional federal lands to solar development. We
believe the Public Lands and Waters Climate Leadership Act will advance
this priority, and we urge policymakers to immediately expand the
universe of federal lands available for solar leasing in order to
harness the full potential of the IRA.
Opportunities for Land Use
According to a soon-to-be released white paper by the Solar and
Storage Industries Institute, ``solar development can be compatible
with conservation and preservation of community character'' when
implemented within a science-based siting framework. Further, the paper
notes that ``new research is beginning to show that more environmental
benefits can flow from solar projects, beyond the injection of carbon
free electricity into the grid, that should be accounted for during
environmental impact review and factored in during permitting.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Large Scale Solar Siting: Encouraging Ecosystem Enhancement and
Conservation While Producing Much Needed Zero Carbon Electricity.
https://www.ssii.org/home/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, large scale solar projects can be seen as tools for
preserving land and increasing the value of that property over time.
Land can in turn be uncultivated for years which will increase the
productivity of soil, or it can host agrivoltaic operations to produce
food and clean electricity simultaneously. Research also shows that
solar facilities can enhance sheep grazing operations and habitat for
pollinator species. We must continue to identify ways that such
projects are beneficial to our ecosystem.
Jobs and Economic Development
Accessibility of solar to all Americans is of paramount importance
to our industry. While SEIA continues to prioritize diversity, equity,
inclusion, and justice, communities that have long faced
disproportionate health disparities from industrial sites in minority
and low-income communities is something that we must focus on as a
nation. Investing in education and job opportunities for in growing
industries like solar and storage can help spur economic growth in
communities across the country, including those impacted by a federal
presence.
SEIA actively works to promote diverse solar and storage supply
chain and services suppliers through our Diverse Suppliers Database. In
addition, we have developed curriculum for our industry to train in
best practices for diversity and inclusion in hiring and retention in
order to ensure our industry reflects the character of our
communities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.seia.org/initiatives/diversity-equity-inclusion-
justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Thank you for your time and continued support of the solar and
storage industry. After the passage of both the IRA and IIJA, the solar
and storage energy is poised to grow exponentially over the next
decade. To meet the climate goals, we must continue building more solar
and storage projects on public lands. Many benefits are possible for
economic and job growth across the country with increased deployment.
However, achieving the steps necessary for additional deployment will
require cooperation and coordination across the federal government and
consistent alignment with national goals to reduce carbon emissions.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ms. Hopper. I am now going to
return to Dr. Ahtuangaruak.
You are recognized for 5 minutes. I hope that the
connection is better now. Welcome to the Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY AHTUANGARUAK, MAYOR, NUIQSUT, ALASKA
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. Thank you. I am not sure how long my
connection will last. I have submitted written testimony.
This is a very important issue for our community. We work
in this process tremendously. And as you all are having
technical difficulty, our whole process was like this, trying
to participate in commenting and participate in webinars.
Bandwidth issues are a real issue. Trying to look at documents
as they change over time and provide effective response to what
other things may be the answers that are needed for our area
don't always come out to be answers that we feel are answers
that are necessary.
I worked really hard in looking at all the recommendations
for required operating procedures for all the issues around
their recommendation and changes. But for this project and the
importance of survivability for my community, it is in the
wrong location. It is in an area where we already have lots of
oil and gas development, but the geological features in this
area are very important for the northern migration and the
southern migration.
Putting this large development with future development
activities continuing to occur in this area puts my community
at risk. The northern migration, we need the animals to come
around this area and to get around the lake to come back to us.
The southern migration, that small area of land on the
northeast corner of Bishopville, [inaudible] when the animals
are coming back to us in very good prime condition, when we
really need to harvest and provide for our families.
Throughout this process, we had to comment during our
heightened subsistence activities. We worked really hard
because this area is so vital to our community. And even though
it impacted us tremendously, we had to make decisions. Are we
going to feed our family this year, or are we going to watch
the changes that come and threaten the years to come?
These were difficult decisions, but nothing was more
difficult than the times that we faced watching what happened
with the CD1 gas leak. Having community members coming to me
and asking me questions when I could not get answers throughout
the process was very difficult. Having family members look at
me with their newborn baby asking, ``Should I protect my child
now? Can we wait for information to see if we are going to be
OK, or should I leave right now? Do I need to protect my
pregnant wife in order to make sure our future generations are
strong? Do I need to leave now?''
Many people made decisions to leave immediately without
waiting for the report because they were very concerned during
the process in the ways that answers were not being given, the
way that statements were given in a unified fashion without
responding to our issues and concerns.
The biggest concerns we faced were what does this mean for
our future. The rapidity of the oil and gas development with
the year-round drilling changed this area tremendously. Is it
the rapidity of drilling that caused the instability of the
site that led to the CD1 gas leak?
Is it an instability created over many wells? Because the
cracks on that pad were over many, many wells, not just one.
Is this an assurance that we have had an evaluation that
looked at what happened, why did it happen, and how are we
going to prevent it? Because the presentations we had during
the calls said that it was a routine occurrence, but we had to
ask those questions.
Is this like the Deepwater Horizon? Is this going to be
like the process with the village in Bhopal, where they didn't
wake up overnight?
Our community felt the effects from the CD1 gas leak. It is
just 8 miles away. We had community members who could feel the
change in the air. Family members had difficulty breathing.
People had headache and nausea. Some people chose to leave.
We watched the industry load their busses and move away
from us and not respond to our phone calls as we were trying to
assess what was happening, and why the evacuation was
occurring, just to have them backpedaling their statements and
saying that it wasn't an evacuation. But we had community
council members who were at the site when the alarms went off,
and told us that we had to leave the area, and told people at
the site that they were evacuating.
Our community is important. The importance of our life,
health, and safety is why I keep trying in these meetings. The
difficulties we face are only becoming amplified.
Earlier in this process I provided testimony----
Dr. Lowenthal. Can you please wrap it up? Your full
testimony will be in the record.
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. The concerns for our life, health, and
safety have provided health concerns, a whole testimony of all
the different health questions that I have faced over a period
of time in working with the NPRA.
We don't want this to be our future. We want to be able to
live our way of life into the future, as our elders taught us,
from our lands and waters.
We thank everyone for giving us this time to communicate
and provide testimony and the maps that are there. It is
important to us, and we thank you for giving us this time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ahtuangaruak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Mayor,
City of Nuiqsut, Alaska
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Stauber, members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in
support of the Public Lands and Waters Climate Leadership Act of 2022,
H.R. 8802
Good morning, my name is Rosemary Ahtuangaruak. I am Inupiat and am
currently a member of the Native Village of Barrow. I was formerly a
member of the Native Village of Nuiqsut. I have lived in Nuiqsut for
over 35 years. I was born in Fairbanks, and also lived in Utqiagvik for
11 years. I moved back to Nuiqsut in 2016 and am currently the Mayor of
Nuiqsut. I also worked as a health aide for 14 years in Nuiqsut.
Today I am here to talk with you about the impacts that climate
change and oil and gas development are having on our community and to
press for action to combat climate change. This is about more than one
specific bill or one specific project. My goal is making sure Nuiqsut
survives into the future as an Inupiat community. That is the biggest
concern we have as Inupiat.
I live a very traditional lifestyle hunting, fishing, whaling, and
gathering plants and berries on the lands and waters around my
community. I have taught my family and my community members to live the
same subsistence lifestyle that was instilled in me by my elders. We
hunt and eat various birds, fish, land mammals, especially caribou, and
marine mammals, including seals and whales. In the winter, we go ice
fishing on the rivers around Nuiqsut and on Teshekpuk Lake. Fishing is
very important to my family, so protecting our rivers and streams from
industrial activities and damage is really important to me. In our
traditional way, animals, lands and waters are revered and treated with
the utmost respect. We work together in harvesting plants and animals
and sharing the harvest.
I have family living in villages across the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska: Wainwright, Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut. We have
extensive sharing traditions that unite and bind our families and
communities, including extended family members in other places.
Our way of life is at risk. Nuiqsut is the closest community on the
North Slope of Alaska to oil and gas development, with industrial
activities increasingly encircling our community. There are multiple
oil and gas developments just miles from our community, close enough
for us to see from Nuiqsut. The rapid pace of development around
Nuiqsut and our changing climate are already significantly threatening
our lands, waters, animals, and people.
The impacts of climate change are very real for our community, and
we are already experiencing changes to the landscape that are further
impacting our ability to continue our way of life. Climate change is
decreasing water levels in our rivers and streams, and in some years
that is making it more difficult to get boats out to the ocean for
whaling and to travel in the tributaries to areas that are important
for our traditional way of life. We see changes to our fish that
scientists say are related to the temperatures of our waters, but we
also worry about the effects from oil and gas development on these
sites with reinjection of toxins into the ground, as we have learned
from historical activities. That will leave us with tremendous effects
in the future with contaminants in the water system.
Our community is currently assessing hydrology in our area to
figure out how to ensure we have continued access to our traditional
areas because of the rapid and continuous changes to the permafrost and
our waters that are impacting our traditional travel routes. Changes to
the sea ice pack and the resulting increased exposure to winds and
waves create tremendous risks for our whalers. Without the protective
ice pack, it is very dangerous to hunt in our small whaling boats. We
have more rain and ice fog because of the open ocean. Torrential rains
and hydrology changes are causing erosion, including right here in
Nuiqsut and along Colville River. We are having so much rain that it is
shifting water levels around the community and causing flooding at
times. Erosion is affecting and changing access along our
transportation routes, including on the Colville River.
We are also experiencing more sink holes and permafrost thaw. We
are having to figure out how to repair structures like our homes and
other buildings because of melting permafrost. We've seen entire lakes
disappear. An area the size of a city block collapsed around four to
six feet in an area adjacent to one of ConocoPhillips' roads. Although
the road itself has not collapsed, it shows the risk to all this
infrastructure--including the oil wells--around our community. As we
interact with industry's activities in our traditional areas, we are
constantly seeing industry's attempts to do repairs and other fixes to
address these problems.
Climate change threatens our ability to hunt, gather, and store our
traditional foods. Every single ice cellar we have has been affected by
permafrost thaw. We now have three community freezers, but they are not
big enough to fit all the whales we can harvest. These are not a
solution to the need for ice cellars. We are trying to modify our ice
cellars, and the ways in which we use them, to counter the warming. We
make them deeper, we pack them with snow, we add covers to create a
buffer, and we change when we put food in there and when we take food
out. We also have to store more food in freezers and prepare our food
differently to counter the lack of reliable ice cellars. All of this
takes a lot of extra effort.
We are already experiencing the devasting effects of existing oil
development, in addition to the impacts of climate change. These
impacts are significant and reach all aspects of our lives. We see them
when we go out fishing. My family's fish camp is about a mile away from
the existing oil and gas developments at Alpine. The variations in
seasonality caused by climate change, combined with effects from oil
and gas infrastructure, are changing our lands and waters. For example,
industry's water crossings degrade fish habitat and harm seasonal
migrations. Gravel mines and man-made lakes affect water levels and
alter plant communities. This requires us to pull our fishing nets from
the water prematurely. Gravel infrastructure used for oil extraction
causes erosion, resulting in more sedimentation. As a result of all
these changes, rivers that we have fished for generations are degraded
and fishing requires increased effort in order to meet our needs.
We are also seeing changes that harm our ability to hunt caribou
and other animals. Our family has a hunting cabin eight miles from
Nuiqsut. This cabin is located across the river from where the Alpine
oilfield was built. Before the oilfield, this used to be our preferred
place to hunt caribou and geese. The caribou are staying away from
industrial activity and avoiding the new roads that run near our
community to the Colville Delta 5 and Greater Mooses Tooth development
projects. There are changes in the way the caribou use the area, and
increasing industrial activities are conflicting with traditional and
cultural uses, continuing to affect our ability to harvest. The
activity levels at those developments are now so high that hunting
around there is greatly impacted; there are too many overflights by
aircraft and helicopters, airboats, vehicle traffic, and industry
personnel present to successfully hunt. The increasing intensity of
industrial activities around us is now constantly impacting and
shifting our use areas. These changes continue to become more
widespread and intense with every passing year, as development expands.
There are hunters that use the road to harvest, but that does not
replace the value of harvesting that would have been in this area if we
did not face these changes.
Instead of addressing these impacts, the Department of Interior
(Interior) is proposing to permit another massive new oil development,
known as the Willow project. The Willow project would expand the
existing development around our community by an additional 250 oil
wells, 37 miles of gravel roads, 386 miles of pipelines, multiple
airstrips, a massive processing facility, and a roughly 120-acre gravel
mine. The project would have devastating and permanent impacts to our
community and way of life.
We talked at length with the federal agencies permitting Willow,
explaining that activities should not be done in ways that cause
impacts to the migration of the animals or the health of the fish that
we depend upon. Yet, Willow would involve roads going across nearly
every one of our tributaries to the east of our community and bridges
and culverts across many streams to the west, and would place oil and
gas infrastructure and widespread industrial activity across an area
that is important for caribou and our community.
The construction and operation of the Willow project would mean
that harmful industrialization would extend out to the Teshekpuk Lake
Special Area. Oil and gas activities near that area will have a big
impact on the caribou. Caribou currently have to go around Teshekpuk
Lake to reach us in the fall time in Nuiqsut. Because of climate
change, the lake is no longer frozen in the summer time and the animals
cannot traverse through the lake to get to us. As our elders previously
recognized, the northeast corner of the lake is a crucial pathway for
the caribou. Willow would disrupt their migratory path even more than
existing oil and gas projects already have and will further harm our
ability to continue our subsistence way of life. Adding the Willow
project to the area near Teshekpuk Lake is a huge threat to our ability
to survive.
Oil and gas activities, coupled with the changing climate, are
causing the caribou to avoid their historic migration areas, forcing us
to travel elsewhere to hunt for them. Our sons, nephews, and grandsons
can no longer hope to get caribou in our traditional areas. My son has
had to travel over 300 miles to get his caribou. Just like with fishing
and caribou hunting, we now have to travel elsewhere and increase our
efforts to get our birds.
Willow would continue to encircle our community with oil and gas
and would make the subsistence and health impacts that we are already
experiencing seem minor in comparison to the impacts we will experience
in the future. Interior should not approve any permits for Willow
unless and until the impacts we are already experiencing from
pollution, industrialization, and climate change can be understood and
remedied. But instead of taking the time to understand the impacts, the
agencies are working to issue permits to the oil and gas industry
without fully evaluating the risks to our health, our plants and
animals, our air and water, and our future. Impacts to our climate and
the health of nearby communities should drive the way agencies make
decisions about industrial projects. Tribal communities, especially
those most directly impacted, should be meaningfully engaged and have a
voice in these decisions.
We have already seen a great reduction in our resources and ability
to teach our traditions just from the industrial noise and current
development around Nuiqsut. These changes are affecting how our we
teach our younger generation to hunt in our traditional use areas.
Other community members and elders have also noticed this and shared
these concerns with me.
The whales are also staying farther offshore because of the noise
and activities in their nearshore habitat. We were always taught to be
quiet to respect the whales. The noise from the industrial activities
agitates the whales and can deflect them from their normal migratory
path farther out into the ocean, making it harder for us to hunt.
Willow would use barges and offshore equipment to transport
infrastructure, and that may risk our subsistence harvesting even
further. We cannot afford more nearshore oil and gas activities and or
more noise impacts between Nuiqsut and Utqiagvik given our marine
mammal harvesting and whaling activities. That is not an acceptable
risk for us. Those impacts cost us whales, and cost us feeding our
family.
Because of decreased harvests in our traditional areas, we cannot
share our foods with our extended families as we used to do and we also
have less to consume ourselves. When we cannot practice our traditional
ways, our youth cannot learn their heritage. When we do not have our
traditional subsistence foods, our people get sick. This raises
concerns for our long-term physical, mental, and spiritual health due
to the failure to meet our nutritional needs.
Industrial activities forcing people to travel further to hunt and
fish creates serious health and safety hazards. The environment is very
difficult to travel in and there are risks of injuries that put strains
on our limited rescue resources. Climate change has also impacted our
roads and trails, weather, and ice, which has contributed to people
going missing. People are running out of fuel when they need to travel
farther to harvest, they break down further out, they get stuck because
erosion or permafrost changes have altered their traditional routes, or
the ice is not as thick as it should be. Normal weather patterns are no
longer normal and can create conditions where people need to be
rescued. In recent years we have had to do many extensive searches for
missing people and still have not found some. All of this has put
additional strains on our search and rescue and community health
resources. We face additional challenges when other people come to our
community and it can be difficult to support them with our limited
resources. This creates additional pressures for all services,
including medivacs and rescue operations. Additional use of areas
around our community will only increase these demands.
Our people's health is also harmed by the air pollution resulting
from these oil and gas activities, with flaring being a particularly
big concern for our air quality. Imagine a massive gas fire burning day
and night, emitting toxic smoke and fumes next door to our community. I
noticed as a health aide that there were increased numbers of people
who needed help to breathe and have suffered from respiratory illnesses
with all the development. We have had a tremendous number of people who
have needed treatment for respiratory illnesses. We need emissions of
greenhouse gases and other air pollutants to decrease to protect our
health. We do not need more empty promises that there will be
monitoring or measures in the future to address the impacts already
occurring now. We need the continuous flaring, which can last for
months on end, to stop.
With increased oil and gas activity comes the increased risks of
spills, blowouts, and other accidents that present serious risks to our
community. Most recently, this March, there was a natural gas leak that
lasted for weeks at a drilling pad in the Alpine field. ConocoPhillips
evacuated its personnel, but our community was left to figure out for
ourselves how to stay safe and to evaluate the risk on our own. As our
mayor, I needed to communicate and provide guidance to our community
members. But ConocoPhillips and the government agencies tasked with
responding to the emergency were not transparent with us about exactly
what was going on and did not provide answers to questions. Because
they were not transparent and did not address concerns, several
families chose to be proactive in opting to leave Nuiqsut during this
time to avoid any potential health impacts. ConocoPhillips evacuated
about 300 of its own employees even as it publicly denied the leak was
a threat to human health and safety in Nuiqsut. This is unacceptable.
We worry and wonder what this gas leaks means to the integrity of
the drilling pad and the wells on it and across our region. Whether a
gas leak will happen again is something that will haunt us into the
future. We do not understand the extent of this recent leak and how it
may have impacted the health of our community. Even before this gas
leak, young community members would ask me about a well blowout that
occurred near our community in 2012 that had serious health impacts on
community members. We live in fear of a similar blowout in the future.
We worry anytime there is an accident like this gas leak, wondering if
it will be an event like the Deepwater Horizon explosion or like the
well blowout in 2012. Our air quality monitoring will not give us
sufficient notification of such an emergency. ConocoPhillips kept
telling us during the calls after the gas leak that methane is
odorless, but we worry with some of the emissions being odorless that
we may not know how we are being harmed and may not wake up one day.
The idea that we might wake up one morning to such a disaster weighs
heavily on our community. The fear that we might not wake up at all is
a fear that we also face. Having oil development in our backyard takes
a mental toll on people of all ages, including me.
I am also concerned that there could be an oil spill someday that
will devastate the lands, animals, and waters we depend on. In turn,
this would diminish our access to traditional foods for years to come.
An oil spill could be devastating. For example, around 2014, a barge
ran aground near the Colville River and tested our oil spill readiness.
The stress and strain on our community showed previous planning efforts
were not up to par. Emotional stress and strain from that event is
still felt in the community.
Living with these changes our subsistence lifestyle and these
uncontrollable risks to our health has effects on other parts of our
life, extending well beyond just the impacts from things like
respiratory problems. Everything is connected in our culture. As a
health aide, I saw first-hand how increased oil activity affected
Nuiqsut. My village has some of the highest rates of alcoholism and
violence, and our community has seen these social ills increase over
time, often associated with oil and gas development. I believe people
turned to this because our food sources have become scarce and it has
become harder to continue our traditional way of life and culture.
Mental health issues are some of the hardest for our community to
deal with because we do not have resources to respond. The mental
health issues we deal with are tied to land use conflicts and a loss or
change in subsistence resources because of our identity and connection
to the land. It is challenging to find solutions to help people deal
with mental health conflicts because we do not have resources to look
at how these things are connected to development and to help us come up
with solutions. Early conflict with development in the Reserve led to
an increase in suicide, and additional more recent development has also
led to more suicide. Is this the pattern we are going to continue to
face in our region? New development, like Willow, will compound these
issues for the community.
What are we going to do to protect our people and our health and
wellbeing? What will it take to be heard? Is it numbers of suicides?
Numbers of substance abuse treatments? Numbers on health disparities?
Those are not statistics I want to count, but are they statistics that
will make us heard? What will it take to change the permits for
activities and projects that harm us and our lands?
I have been talking about these issues for many years, and yet the
agencies do not accurately or fully capture Nuiqsut's views in their
analysis or acknowledge the very real risks to our community's survival
from the continued spread of oil and gas development. We want to be
precautionary and preventative. We want to be protective, and we want
to be proactive. This means the impacts that we are already
experiencing must be studied before the government greenlights even
more industrialization on top of our community. It also means that
Interior needs to engage and consult with our community in a real way.
That has not been happening.
We keep engaging in these permitting processes in the hopes of
being heard, even when our experience shows we will not be listened to.
Many regulatory processes have occurred over the years, but there is
nothing in any permit to respond to our hardships, our loss of harvest,
or the loss of our way of life. For the Willow project, the process has
been flawed from the outset and continues to get worse. BLM recently
held a short comment period on the draft environmental analysis during
our busiest time of the year for subsistence harvesting. We asked for
more time to submit comments, but the Department of Interior denied
that request. We shouldn't have to choose between putting food on our
tables versus speaking out on a project that will harm our ability to
continue hunting and fishing in our traditional areas. To me, it is
obvious that the agencies are going to once again fail to fully
consider or address Willow's impacts to our community, and Nuiqsut is
going to continue to be sacrificed for the sake of further oil
development.
The Reserve is important to me because our families' way of life
depends on the health of our animals continuing so that we may
continue. Each one of these oil and gas projects puts us at risk, with
Willow poised to devastate our community.
Our government seems to spend more time looking for ways to
increase oil and gas production than it spends on developing safer and
cleaner energy solutions, enforcing these solutions, or protecting the
communities most impacted by these projects. Oil and gas development
should not happen at the expense of our health and our survival. Our
communities are not sacrifice zones.
I fear that our future as Inupiat is in jeopardy. Congress needs to
act. This bill is a step in the right direction for addressing climate
change and elevating the voices of communities like ours that are
directly impacted by industrial development and the impacts of climate
change. I hope this legislation will give a platform to discuss climate
and human impacts. I also hope this legislation puts the climate
impacts and health impacts of oil and gas development into focus for
the Biden administration and Congress.
I ask that you pass this legislation to protect our human rights
and our way of life. Quyanaq for the opportunity to address you today.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Mayor,
Nuiqsut, Alaska
Dr. Ahtuangaruak did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. Does ConocoPhillips provide free natural gas to the
community of Nuiqsut to heat homes and generate power?
(1a). How much would the community pay if oil and gas companies
weren't making it available to you?
(1b). Would you have natural gas at all?
(1c). Without this free natural gas, how would community residents
heat their homes?
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Ahtuangaruak.
Now, Mr. Stein, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
testimony.
STATEMENT OF KENNY STEIN, POLICY DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY
RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Stein. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify at this hearing. My name is Kenny Stein. I am the
Policy Director for the Institute for Energy Research.
At the outset, I would commend the Committee for
recognizing that this new legislation is needed to change how
the Department of the Interior manages Federal lands. The Biden
administration executive actions attempting to halt or reduce
leasing and otherwise restricting multiple use on Federal lands
are contrary to statute. In order for the Department to make
these sweeping changes, Congress must first change the
Department's mandate, as this legislation would. Absent such
legislation, though, Interior must immediately cease its
illegal efforts to restrict leasing and development on Federal
lands.
That said, the approach taken by this legislation would
harm our national security by making America more dependent on
imports, would damage our economy and drive up already high
energy prices, and completely overturn the long-standing
principles of multiple use which have historically guided
Federal land management.
Before getting to the specific energy implications, I will
also highlight the most important and most damaging element of
this legislation, and I think the implications of which have
not actually been fully thought through.
In Section 2, the legislation would change the guiding
principle of Federal land management from multiple use to a
standard that ``public lands should be managed to rapidly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutant emissions.''
It is difficult to understate the radicalness of such a
mandate. Greenhouse gases are byproducts of human activity, all
human activity. A mandate to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions on Federal lands is a mandate to rapidly reduce all
human activity on Federal lands.
To take just a few examples, there are substantial
emissions involved in tourists visiting our national parks and
other Federal lands for recreation. This mandate would thus
require reducing public access to national parks and Federal
lands.
There are greenhouse gas emissions associated with, say,
constructing a solar generation facility, cutting down trees,
pouring cement, heavy machinery that runs on diesel, and so on.
My fellow witness today from SEIA was probably concerned to
hear that this legislation's mandate would be used to prevent
solar installations on Federal land.
What about a community located on or surrounded by Federal
lands which wishes to build a new road, expand an airstrip, or
even just construct a few new buildings? All of those actions
involve greenhouse gas emissions. Our witness today who
represents one of those communities should be concerned about
the implications of this sort of mandate on their community's
ability to build and maintain basic infrastructure.
If any of these examples sound extreme, just look at the
use and abuse of the National Environmental Policy Act. And
NEPA only calls for rather anodyne consideration of
environmental impacts. This mandate affirmatively orders
Interior to reduce emissions by any means necessary, and no
matter the cost. In the hands of extreme environmentalist
litigants, this legislation would halt not just oil, gas, and
coal leasing, which are the ostensible target, it would halt
virtually all activity of any kind on Federal lands.
Turning from perhaps those unintended consequences to the
intended, this legislation is essentially license to halt
production of conventional fuels on Federal lands. While there
is an ideological fixation in the environmental community on
halting the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, halting leasing
on Federal lands does nothing to advance that cause. The
economic demand for those resources still exists, and it will
have to be met from production elsewhere, whether state and
private lands or imported from foreign countries.
Reducing or ending energy production on Federal lands
would, however, undermine American national security. While the
world, and especially Europe, we have seen them struggling with
an energy crisis for much of the last year, the United States
has largely been spared the kind of pain that they are going
through. But that is because of the strength of our domestic
energy production.
Oil production on Federal lands accounts for about 25
percent of U.S. production. The Federal share of natural gas
production has fallen somewhat in recent years, but it still
exceeds 10 percent of total production. And that production is
the reason that the United States is not facing shuttered
industries and winter gas shortages like Europe is facing.
Reducing domestic oil and gas production would actually be
worse for the environment, overall. Domestic demand for the
fuels, like oil and natural gas, which the EIA forecasts to
continue to provide the majority of American energy needs even
in 2050, will have to be met by imports. But U.S. oil and gas
production is cleaner and safer than virtually anywhere else in
the world by any measure.
This legislation might allow someone to pat themselves on
the back for getting the Federal greenhouse gas emissions tally
down a bit, but if your concern is greenhouse gas emissions, it
is global emissions that matter. Substituting imports for
domestic production would end up increasing overall
international global gas and global greenhouse gas emissions.
The economic consequences of this legislation can also not
be ignored. Revenues from Federal energy production are crucial
for states and communities across the western United States,
supporting government services like schools and hospitals. Jobs
like solar panel installer or a backcountry hiking guide are no
replacement for high-paying, skilled jobs in the energy sector.
For the wider economy, energy prices are already a key
driver of inflation, both in ways we see clearly, like the
price at the pump and ways of which are more hidden.
Restricting supply at a time when global supplies are already
tight will only make energy more expensive.
This legislation will cost jobs, increase inflation, reduce
government revenues, increase imports, weaken national
security, and restrict access to and use of Federal lands by
the public. It is all pain and no gain, and should be rejected
by Congress.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Stein, Policy Director, Institute for
Energy Research
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing.
My name is Kenny Stein, I am the Policy Director for the Institute
for Energy Research, a free-market organization that conducts research
and analysis on the function, operation, and regulation of energy
markets.
I commend the committee for recognizing that new legislation is
needed to change how the Department of Interior manages federal lands.
The Biden administration executive actions attempting to halt or reduce
leasing and otherwise restricting multiple use on federal lands are
contrary to statute. In order for the department to make these sweeping
changes, Congress must first change the department's mandate, as this
legislation would. Absent such legislation, Interior must immediately
cease its illegal efforts to restrict leasing and development on
federal lands.
That said, the approach taken by this legislation would harm our
national security by making America more dependent on imports; damage
our economy and drive up already high energy prices; and completely
overturn the long-standing principles of multiple use which have
historically guided management of federal lands.
Before getting to specific energy implications, I will highlight
the most damaging element of this legislation, the implications of
which have likely not been fully thought through. In section 2, the
legislation would change the guiding principle of federal land
management from multiple use to a standard that ``public lands should
be managed to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutant
emissions.'' It is difficult to understate the radicalness of such a
mandate. Greenhouse gases are byproducts of human activity, all human
activity. A mandate to rapidly reduce GHG emissions on federal lands is
a mandate to rapidly reduce all human activity on federal lands.
To take just a few examples:
There are substantial emissions involved in tourists
visiting our national parks and other federal lands for
recreation. This mandate would thus require reducing public
access to national parks and federal lands.
There are GHG emissions associated with constructing a
solar generation facility: cutting down trees, pouring
cement, heavy machinery running on diesel, and so on. My
fellow witness today from SEIA may be concerned to hear
that this legislation's mandate would be used to prevent
solar installations on federal lands.
What about a community located on or surrounded by federal
lands which wishes to build a new road, expand an airstrip,
or even just construct some new buildings? All those
actions involve greenhouse gas emissions. Our witness today
who represents one of those communities should be concerned
about the implications of this new mandate on her
community's ability to build and maintain basic
infrastructure.
If any of these examples sound extreme, just take a look at the use
and abuse of the National Environmental Policy Act. And NEPA only calls
for rather anodyne consideration of environmental impacts. This new
radical mandate affirmatively orders Interior to reduce emissions, by
any means necessary and no matter the cost. In the hands of extreme
environmentalist litigants, this legislation would halt not just oil,
gas, and coal leasing, which are the ostensible target. It would halt
virtually all activity of any kind on federal lands.
Turning from perhaps unintended consequences to the intended, this
legislation is essentially license to halt production of conventional
fuels on federal lands. While there is an ideological fixation in the
environmental community on halting the use of coal, oil and natural
gas, halting leasing on federal lands does nothing to advance that
cause. The economic demand for those resources still exists and will be
met by production from elsewhere, whether state and private lands or
imported from foreign countries.
Reducing or ending energy production on federal lands would,
however, undermine American national security. While the world, and
especially Europe, has been struggling with an energy crisis for much
of the last year, the United States has largely been spared the pain.
But that is because of the strength of our domestic energy production.
Oil production on federal land accounts for about 25% of US production.
The federal share of natural gas production has fallen somewhat, but
still exceeds 10%. That production is the reason the United States is
not facing shuttered industries and winter gas shortages like in
Europe.
Reducing domestic oil and gas production would actually be worse
for the environment overall. Domestic demand for those fuels, which EIA
forecasts to continue to provide the majority of energy needs in the US
even in 2050, will have to be met by imports. But US oil and gas
production is cleaner and safer than virtually anywhere else in the
world by any measure. This legislation might allow someone to pat
themselves on the back for getting the federal greenhouse gas emissions
tally down a bit, but if your concern is greenhouse gas emissions, it
is global emissions that matter. Substituting imports for domestic
production would end up increasing greenhouse gas emissions overall.
The economic consequences of this legislation also cannot be
ignored. Revenues from federal energy production are crucial for states
and communities across the western United States, supporting government
services like schools and hospitals. Jobs like solar panel installer or
backcountry hiking guide are no replacement for high-paying, skilled
jobs in the energy sector. For the wider American economy, energy
prices are already a key driver of inflation, both in ways we see
clearly, like the price at the pump, and ways which are more hidden,
such as higher grocery prices because of costlier transportation.
Restricting supply at a time when global supplies are already tight
will only make energy more expensive, adding to already soaring
inflation.
This legislation will cost jobs, increase inflation, reduce
government revenues, increase imports, weaken national security, and
restrict access to and use of federal lands by the public. All this is
to be done in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but even
that is a mirage. When federal supply is replaced by imported fuels
with higher emissions profiles, overall global emissions will rise.
It's all pain and no gain, and should be rejected by Congress.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Kenneth Stein, Policy Director,
Institute for Energy Research
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. If this bill were to go into effect and our Federal oil
and gas program was halted, which I believe is this bill's true intent,
what would the result be on energy consumption?
Answer. The legislation would not change energy demand in any way.
Energy resources including oil, natural gas and coal would still be
needed. The only impact would be to increase the cost of those
resources by restricting supply.
Question 2. Would people all over the world stop using oil and gas
to drive their cars and heat their homes? Or would they get it from
somewhere else?
Answer. No, this legislation would not do anything to change energy
use patterns. Natural gas will remain favored over electricity for home
heating because it is more cost effective and efficient, especially in
colder climates. Even optimistic scenarios for electric vehicle
adoption still have a majority of the cars on the road running gasoline
for many decades to come. If domestic sources of these resources are
cut off, as this legislation seeks to do, we will have to import them
from foreign producers.
Question 3. If oil and gas were procured from overseas instead of
domestic production as a result of this bill, what impact would that
have on global emissions?
Answer. US oil and gas production have among the best emissions
profiles (for all emissions, whether greenhouse gases or toxic
pollutants) of production anywhere in the world. To take just one
example, in the US well more than 90% of associated methane from oil
production is captured and put to use, whereas in most oil producing
countries the majority of associated gas is vented or flared directly
into the atmosphere. Imported oil and gas that would be needed to
replace domestic production would also come by sea on ships, which of
course have emissions of their own. Overall, replacing domestic
production with imported oil or gas would actually increase global
emissions.
Questions Submitted by Representative DeGette
Question 1. What level of climate change consequence would you
consider a crisis?
Answer. Climate change is a gradual, long-term trend with highly
uncertain impacts. I do not think that a gradual, long-term trend can
be described as a crisis. The term ``Crisis'' is a simple matter of
personal opinion and, for me, requires immediacy and immediate
significance.
(1a). Would you consider a steady increase in the frequency and
intensity of storms such as Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Fiona, Typhoon
Merbok, Typhoon Noru, Typhoon Nanmadol, and Hurricane Katrina a crisis?
Answer. There is no strong evidence that the frequency or intensity
of hurricanes has been increasing. Global hurricane frequency and
global Accumulated Cyclone Energy show no positive trend over the last
50 years. Indeed, recent years have seen both measures at historical
lows.\1\ The IPCC, WMO, and NOAA do project such an increase in the
future due to warming, but there is not high confidence of current
detectable impact. To quote NOAA, for example: ``We conclude that the
historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide
compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced
century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or
major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major
hurricanes.'' \2\ Even if such a trend did exist, no, a gradual, long-
term trend is not a crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://climatlas.com/tropical/.
\2\ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/.
(1b). Would you consider a steady increase in the frequency and
severity of in-land flooding, such as that which occurred in July of
this year in Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
crisis?
Answer. The National Climate Assessment (NCA) states: ``Human-
induced warming has not been formally identified as a factor in
increased riverine flooding and the timing of any emergence of a future
detectable human-caused change is unclear.'' \3\ I am also not aware of
a documented increase in the frequency or severity of flooding events
in the US. The EPA river flooding climate change indicator tracker
finds increasing floods in some regions and decreasing floods in other
regions.\4\ The NCA likewise states: ``Trends in related types of
extreme events, such as floods, are more difficult to discern.'' \5\
Even if such a trend did exist, no a gradual, long-term trend is not a
crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-
indicators-river-flooding.
\5\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.
(1c). Would you consider the collapse of the Colorado River as a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
primary source of water for 40 million Americans a crisis?
Answer. The NCA states: ``Although recent droughts and associated
heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United
States, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and
extreme heat event in the historical record, and though by some
measures drought has decreased over much of the continental United
States in association with long-term increases in precipitation, there
is as yet no detectable change in long-term U.S. drought statistics.''
\6\ The IPCC AR6 is similarly mixed in connecting drought and climate
change. The Climate Science Special Report accompanying the NCA put it:
``Western North America was noted as a region where determining if
observed recent droughts were unusual compared to natural variability
was particularly difficult. This was due to evidence from paleoclimate
proxies of cases of central U.S. droughts during the past 1,000 years
that were longer and more intense than historical U.S. droughts.'' \7\
The scientific literature does not support attributing the Colorado
River water situation to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.
\7\ https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that the Colorado river water shortage can be termed a
crisis. However, it is not a ``climate crisis,'' it is a water
management crisis. The Intermountain West and the Colorado River
specifically have been prone to drought for tens of thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands, of years. The water allocations between western
states and Mexico were decided during one of the wettest periods in
history and never adjusted for reality. The Colorado River is not
capable of supporting the level of population and agriculture currently
using it, and it was never capable of doing so. Continuing to rely on
this river instead of developing alternatives or keeping consumption
growth in check was a policy error, and has resulted in a crisis. But
this crisis has come about irrespective of climate change. Talking
about climate change in this context is frankly harmful because it
gives people the impression that taking action to fight climate change
can address or would have prevented the situation, as if having 100%
renewable electricity would prevent a drought in the western US. It
misdirects attention and resources and prevents the public and elected
officials from grappling with the real underlying water management
issue.
Question 2. What adaptation measures would you recommend for those
whose lives and livelihoods will be ended or disrupted by the above
events?
Answer. The options for adaptive measures are near endless, so it
would be impossible to list them all. I'm sure there are plenty of
engineering ideas that I am completely unfamiliar with because humans
are endlessly creative. Both globally and domestically, we have seen
precipitous declines in the number of deaths from climate events. We
have also seen no increase in the damages from climate events as a
percentage of GDP, despite the human habit of building and living in
places where such events are regular occurrences. That is why I
confidently stated my belief that humans can adapt and overcome
whatever impacts might be experienced from rising temperatures.
Additionally, adaptation will be required, regardless of the policy
choices in the US and Europe. The rest of the world outside rich,
developed countries is not on board with forced reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions. China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, and so on
all aspire to American, or at least European, living standards, and
they are going to emit whatever it takes to get their populations
things like reliable electricity, personal transportation, and other
modern conveniences. Even Europe has been rapidly discarding climate
targets in the face of their current energy crisis. So, GHG emissions
are going to continue to increase globally, full stop. Thus any impacts
from those emissions are going to happen and we are going to have to
deal with them through adaptation.
However, I will list a few ideas for each of the above scenarios
(for each of which there is insufficient evidence of effects from
climate change).
Hurricanes: stronger building standards; restoration of mangroves/
wetlands/barrier islands; reducing groundwater pumping; improved roads
and bridges; improved warning systems; sea walls; preventing
development in the most flood prone areas
River flooding: levees and defined flood plains; only channelizing
rivers where necessary; stronger building standards; warning systems;
preventing development in some flood prone areas; establishment/
restoration of wetlands or conservation areas for water catchment;
modernization/construction of dams
Colorado River: development of additional sources (e.g.
desalinization, dams, recycling); planting less thirsty crops;
improving irrigation and water transportation infrastructure to reduce
leaks and evaporation; expanding drip irrigation and other improved
irrigation techniques; limiting certain types of superfluous water
consumption (like lawns); changes to water usage rights and laws to
prevent wasteful ``use it or lose it'' approach to water rights.
______
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Stein.
I think I want to thank the panel for their testimony, and
I want to remind the 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 am going to start by
recognizing Representative DeGette for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you for your comity in recognizing me now. I have another
meeting I have to go to.
Dr. Dessler, I really appreciated what you said in terms
of, not only do we need to get to energy independence and
renewables because we need to do it for the existential threat
of climate change, but also we need to do it for economic
reasons to get independent of our international oil and gas
market, which causes things like the big gas price spikes that
we saw this summer.
For the last year, a lot of us on this Committee have been
forced to sit week after week and listen to our Republican
colleagues assail the solar industry over importing solar
products from countries with poor labor and environmental
processes, as if we support poor labor and environmental
processes, which is not true. And this is why, Ms. Hopper, I am
so glad you are here joining us today from California to talk
to us about this, because I just wanted to ask you about the
industry's response and positions on what we can do to keep
that from happening.
So, I want to ask you if the solar industry supports swift
and robust implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention
Act and other actions to block the importation of products made
with forced labor.
Ms. Hopper. Congresswoman, thank you so much for that
question. The answer is unequivocally yes. We support quick and
swift implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act.
We act expeditiously in our industry and in our
association, first of all, to make clear that unethical labor
practices, forced labor practices, any of those sorts of
things, we do not want them to be a part of the solar supply
chain.
So, we have taken specific steps to change our supply
chain. We have created a traceability protocol that our
companies are utilizing to be able to trace where their
products are coming from all the way back down the supply
chain. We have worked very closely with Customs and Border
Protection to ensure that they have the information they need
to validate where our products are coming from.
And one of the most important pieces is the action that
this Congress took under the Inflation Reduction Act to help
bring domestic manufacturing back to the United States, so that
we have a much clearer view of where our products are coming
from, what the inputs are, and, in addition, provides lots of
economic opportunities.
So, this is an issue that we are very focused on, and I
look forward to continue to work closely with you on that.
Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. And I want to tell you, Ms. Hopper, that in
Congress we also believe--and that is why we passed this bill--
that we should be producing and processing more of the raw
materials for our solar technologies.
Also, I think you would agree there are other countries who
are our international allies who have strong labor and
enforcement laws that we could also partner with. Do you also
support that in your industry?
Ms. Hopper. Absolutely. We have very well established,
trusted trading relationships with many countries around the
world who have similar values as ours around labor and
environmental standards, and that is part of the supply chain.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I think I will leave
my next line of questioning for someone else. But I want to
thank you for having this important hearing.
I want to thank Chairman Grijalva for his vision with this
Committee in having these types of legislation, and I yield
back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Representative DeGette.
I now call upon and recognize Representative Stauber for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Ahtuangaruak, can you hear me?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. Yes, I can.
Mr. Stauber. OK. Did you write your testimony?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. Yes, I did.
Mr. Stauber. It appears, from my end, that the file's
author is actually a Bridget Psarianos. Does this person work
in an official capacity for your city?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. I have worked with many different people
over the last 30 years, various relationships over many years.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Stauber. Doctor, I believe----
Dr. Lowenthal. We are losing contact with the doctor.
Mr. Stauber. Is she still on, Mr. Chair?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. I am sorry, can you hear me?
Dr. Lowenthal. Now we can hear her.
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. OK.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I would like to reclaim whatever
time was lost in that----
Dr. Lowenthal. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
So, Dr. Ahtuangaruak, it appears that Bridget Psarianos
wrote this. Does she work in an official capacity for your
city? I don't mean to fluster you.
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. No.
Mr. Stauber. She doesn't?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. No, I have worked with many different
people over 30 years or so in this practice, and she was with
previous relationships.
Mr. Stauber. Dr. Ahtuangaruak, I have document properties
from your testimony that says the author of your testimony
today that you said that you wrote was from a Bridget
Psarianos.
It appears that Ms. Psarianos works for a Trustees for
Alaska, an environmental group actively participating in a
lawsuit seeking to kill the Willow Project. In fact, she was
quoted recently in a Washington Post article saying, ``My hope
is that Willow dies a death by a thousand cuts.'' That is her
quote.
Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record 36 letters
of support for the Willow Project from Alaska Natives, labor
groups, trade associations, and elected representatives. The
most recent one is dated September 16, 2022, that has all
Federal elected representatives out of Alaska supporting the
Willow Project.
Dr. Lowenthal. Without objection.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Stein, thank you so much for joining us
today. Your testimony discusses how this bill shifts away from
the long-standing principles of multiple use on our Federal
lands to a single, closed-minded approach.
Could you provide a brief background on the importance of a
true, multiple-use mandate contrasted with a new, shortsighted
approach like the one in this bill?
Mr. Stein. Sure. So, multiple uses is a lot like what it
sounds like. It is that public lands are supposed to be
available to the use of the public in multiple different ways.
And that means, certainly, recreation, hiking, biking. It also
means resource extraction, timber, mining, oil and gas, and
wind and solar generation. So, the idea is that these are
public lands are available for the use of the public.
This legislation changes that mandate and would effectively
override that multiple use because, as I said in my testimony,
greenhouse gases are a side effect of all human activity. So,
any human access onto Federal lands, virtually any human access
onto Federal lands, is going to generate greenhouse gas
emissions and would thus be contrary to this new mandate.
Mr. Stauber. H.R. 8802 would halt all new leasing of coal,
oil, gas, and fossil fuel infrastructure on Federal lands until
the Secretary develops a ``public report and action plan.''
Could you discuss how this plan will simply create more
litigation and get the anti-American energy activist lawyers
paid?
Mr. Stein. Well, sure. As I mentioned the NEPA process,
this is basically adding a new NEPA process, because the
Interior is going to spend an extended period of time coming up
with this program, then everyone is going to sue to say there
are problems with the program, and that is going to have to go
through litigation. And 10 years from now, we will still be
trying to get our first program set up in the first place. And
during that entire time, oil and gas leasing will be halted.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Just for your information, there is
a mine in Minnesota that has been going through the process. We
are working on pushing 20 years now. So, I understand.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Representative Stauber. I now
recognize Representative Dingell for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, for holding
today's hearing. It is a very important issue.
Thanks to the Biden administration, we are on a path to
significantly and meaningfully cut our carbon emissions and
achieving a net-zero clean economy by 2050. This includes
making a transformational shift in the transportation sector to
electrification, which is very important. But our public lands
and oceans have a role to play, as well, in the fight against
climate change. And that is why this hearing today is so
important.
I would like to start with Ms. Hopper to discuss the
challenges of working on public lands as it relates to solar
projects, and how we can improve the permitting process.
Ms. Hopper, what are some unique challenges of working on
public lands, and what steps has the Biden administration taken
so far to reduce these challenges?
Ms. Hopper. Good morning. Thank you for that question,
Congresswoman.
Some of the unique challenges of working on public lands
are sort of the interagency aspect of it, that there are often
numerous entities that are involved in the permitting. So,
sometimes there isn't always as clear communication or
timelines which, obviously, impact the attractiveness of the
project to developers.
There are rental rates that have historically been changed
and most recently were lowered by the Biden administration.
That has been a very welcome development.
During the Biden administration--I think I mentioned in my
testimony, the BLM has permitted 1,500 megawatts on public
lands. That is as a result of some of the expedited permitting
processes.
But anything that this Administration or this bill can do
to both increase interagency collaboration and make more public
lands available will be helpful.
Mrs. Dingell. I am going to combine two questions because I
want to try to get several questions in and one with another
witness.
What more can we do, as a Congress and the Administration,
to improve the permitting process for solar energy products?
And you have experience, as we know, as the Director of
Ocean Energy Management. Can you speak to the importance of
fully-staffed and resourced Federal agencies that oversee and
permit clean energy?
Ms. Hopper. Absolutely. It is critical, regardless of the
energy source, that the agencies have the staff and the
expertise they need to do the work that we have entrusted them
with. So, fully funding the office, the BLM, Renewable Energy
Office, other agencies is critical to allowing an expeditious
permitting process to go forward.
Additional things that this Congress can do is to really
instruct the Bureau of Land Management, in particular, and U.S.
Forest Service to make more land available for solar and
storage development. Those two things will go a long way to
expediting the process.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Dr. Dessler, as a climate scientist, what is your view on
the Inflation Reduction Act?
And do you think its implementation is critical to the
United States achieving its climate targets in the coming
years?
Dr. Dessler. Yes. I think that the United States has a
stated target of reducing emissions 50 percent by 2030, and go
to net-zero by 2050. That is what the Biden administration has
said the target is. I think the Inflation Reduction Act is
crucial for achieving those targets.
While the cost of wind and solar are now the cheapest
energy sources, we are still not transitioning fast enough. The
market is not moving fast enough for various systemic reasons
like transmission availability and permitting, and things like
that, that you need to have policy like the Inflation Reduction
Act in order to hit the targets that the Biden administration
has set.
Mrs. Dingell. Would any of you like to comment about access
to public lands, and how we increase accessibility to minerals
that we are going to need to lessen our dependence on China at
80 percent, and bring that home to this country?
[Pause.]
Mrs. Dingell. I may ask you all some more, but were you
going to say something, Doctor? I am going to submit some more
questions for the record.
[Pause.]
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. This is Rosemary, and there are very
important issues to discuss, but not all of our special areas
should be sacrificed for the needs for energy. We need to work
together on identifying areas where we need to work on these
issues to obtain the resources to allow us to make these
changes and the needs for energy development.
Mrs. Dingell. And protect the environment and communities
at the same time. It is a challenge, but we can have economic
security, national security, and environmental security. They
are not exclusive. And that is what we all have to work to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Representative Dingell.
I now recognize Representative Graves for 5 minutes of
questions. Welcome.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
recognition and the hearing.
This is once again another piece of legislation that
completely ignores facts. It ignores science, it ignores data.
It just comes in with a sledgehammer and says, ``We are going
to take all of our public lands and put them off limits to
energy production,'' whenever the Administration, the Biden
administration's projections, show that you are going to have a
50 percent growth in global energy demand in the next 28 years.
It weakens NATO because our European friends, our NATO
allies in Europe, they need additional conventional energy
sources, and in some cases still getting it from Russia,
funding the war that they are then funding Ukraine to try to
repel.
Every action that this Administration has taken virtually,
has added up and resulted in greater greenhouse gas emissions.
Not lower, but greater. So, to see the Chairman once again come
in and completely ignore facts, science, data, reality that
indicates that by producing American energy you actually result
in lower global greenhouse gas emissions.
I am curious, Mr. Stein. When you take options off the
table like this, do you see a requisite reduction in demand for
energy?
Mr. Stein. Well, no, and that is precisely the point. These
sources are going to be used. The Ranking Member mentioned
heating homes in Minnesota; that is not an option, and you need
natural gas to do that. So, it is going to have to come from
somewhere. And if it is not produced here, that has to be
replaced by imports.
And again, there are much lower environmental standards
around the world than in the United States.
Mr. Graves. Lower environmental standards, for example, in
the offshore Gulf of Mexico, some of the least carbon-intensive
barrels and cubic feet of energy in the world. Yet, we are
watching this Administration go out and ask Venezuela, ask Iran
and other countries for energy. Those countries have higher
emissions than the United States and, as you indicated, lower
environmental or safety standards.
So, what happens with global greenhouse gas emissions when
you do that?
Mr. Stein. Well, if you are replacing the American sources
that generally are, as you said, lower emissions than most
places where oil and gas are produced, then ultimately--
domestically, it might look like we have lowered our greenhouse
gas emissions. But on a global level, emissions actually will
likely end up higher because, again, in places like Venezuela
or Nigeria the natural gas is basically all vented and flared.
It is not used at all.
Mr. Graves. Is that right?
Mr. Stein. Whereas in the United States, we capture more
than 90 percent of our natural gas that comes up with oil.
Mr. Graves. Of course, I am asking a question that I know
the answer to, but is this strategy going to result in
stabilizing the climate in the United States, but then causing
climate problems in other countries, or is that not how it
works?
Mr. Stein. Well, climate change is a global effect, so any
changes are global. Just because we lower our emissions here,
that doesn't mean that it changes the impact of climate change
on the United States.
Mr. Graves. So, once again, a science-uninformed bill that
once again the Committee is putting forth. This plays into the
hands of other countries that are largely adversaries of the
United States.
So, you failed that one by giving them benefits. You have
failed on the environmental front, because this is going to
result in greater greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Stein, another question: What happens to the U.S. trade
deficit whenever you shut down domestic energy production
opportunities and become more dependent upon foreign sources?
Mr. Stein. Well, that is the great irony, that 20 years ago
we were very concerned about our dependence on foreign oil, and
it is domestic production that has made us not concerned about
that.
Mr. Graves. So, this would increase the trade deficit,
meaning that we would be taking something we are currently
producing in the United States and exporting, and we would
become more dependent upon foreign sources that, by the way,
are dirtier. So, less economic activity in the United States,
handing over our dollars to other countries that are
unfriendly, eliminating jobs in the United States, and creating
job opportunities in other countries that aren't friends of the
United States. Is there any upside to this?
Mr. Stein. Certainly not that I see.
Mr. Graves. Yes, that is what I thought. Great, thank you.
I appreciate it.
I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Representative Graves. Has
Representative Huffman returned to the----
Mr. Huffman. I am in the Committee room, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lowenthal. Well, then I am going to recognize you for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is
pretty rich to hear colleagues across the aisle criticize this
bill for not respecting science and data, when, in fact, all of
the science relating to our climate tells us we have a crisis.
The overwhelming consensus of the best scientists in the
world is that we have a climate crisis that is driven by,
primarily, the burning of fossil fuels. And we have this decade
to fundamentally change course, or else we may well have an
unlivable planet. That is what science and data tells us. So,
to turn around and claim that taking action in the face of that
crisis somehow doesn't jive with the science and data is just
not a credible position.
But an interesting thing has happened in Republican
messaging on climate. The climate crisis has gotten so obvious.
The typhoon in western Alaska is just the latest. In any given
week, any given day, this planet is telling us that all of the
climate models, all of the warnings we have been receiving for
decades are real, they are correct. And, in fact, these impacts
are accelerating. And it is something we just are past due to
grapple with. But Republicans can't deny all that outright
anymore. It has just become too obvious to anyone who is paying
attention. So, what they do is they just attack any attempt to
take action on it. They come up with excuses and tortured
arguments.
We heard incredible exaggeration from Mr. Stein taking a
policy in this bill that would simply require that we manage
public lands and our Outer Continental Shelf to reduce
greenhouse gases, and extrapolating from that that we are going
to literally shut down all activity on public land. That is
preposterous. Suggesting that these actions somehow will be
worse for the environment than a business as usual status quo,
where we are contributing to this climate crisis and wrecking
public lands with fossil fuel developments in the worst
possible ways, these are just not serious arguments, and it is
too bad that we have to even respond to them.
But before I turn to Ms. Hopper with a specific question,
let me thank Chair Grijalva for this bill. It is a good piece
of legislation. I am proud to be co-sponsoring it. It is, I
think, a necessary response to the Inflation Reduction Act,
which sets some important policies in place to move toward
clean energy, but also saddles us with some business-as-usual
fossil fuel leasing that is hard to reconcile with our climate
goals. This bill puts in place a process that will kind of
force that reconciliation, and I think it is a very good
follow-on to the Inflation Reduction Act.
But, Ms. Hopper, on behalf of the solar industry, you
probably want to build some projects on public lands. So, gosh,
if this terrible, sinister language in this bill would shut
down all human activity on public lands, create a no man's land
where no one could ever go, no one could ever do anything, and
all the other absurdities that we heard from Mr. Stein, you
probably would oppose that language. But I hear you are here
today supporting that language. Do you want to explain why?
Ms. Hopper. Sure, thank you, Congressman, and I am here
supporting this bill because it is important to--while we need
to look at the greenhouse gas impacts of all energy generation
and all activity, I think what this bill is really asking for
is a balanced approach, just understanding what the impacts
are, and making informed decisions based on data and based on
science.
We think that solar energy is a critical piece of the
solution set for the climate crisis, and the production, the
build, and the installation of solar panels is an activity that
is appropriate. And the climate benefits we would get vastly
outweigh any greenhouse gas implications of the bill. So, we
think it is important to do it, and we would love to build more
on public lands.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Stein, I am going to just ask you a yes-or-no question.
You must be familiar with the IPCC's reporting, telling us that
there is a climate crisis caused by primarily the human burning
of fossil fuels, and that we have a very limited time to
fundamentally and rapidly change course and decarbonize the
global economy. Do you agree with that consensus with the IPCC
or not? It is a yes-or-no question.
Mr. Stein. That is not what the IPCC says. It does not say
that there is a climate crisis. You will not find that in the
IPCC scientific reports.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Do you believe there is a climate----
Mr. Stein. That is not a scientific statement, ``a climate
crisis,'' no, absolutely not.
Mr. Huffman. That is fascinating to hear.
Mr. Stein. It is not a scientific statement.
Mr. Huffman. So, do you believe there is a climate crisis?
Mr. Stein. No, I do not.
Mr. Huffman. OK.
Mr. Stein. It is not a crisis. The Earth is not becoming
uninhabitable, and it will not become uninhabitable. Even the
worst case scenarios don't indicate an uninhabitable----
Mr. Huffman. This is wonderful to hear this in its fullest
form.
Do you believe it is just fine to be on track for 2 degrees
Celsius or greater warming by mid-century, end of this century,
all that is just fine?
Mr. Stein. I think humanity is more than capable of
adapting to that warming, yes.
Mr. Huffman. Well, let us welcome the true expression of
climate denial that sometimes our Republican friends like to
say they have evolved beyond. It is alive and well.
Mr. Stein. It is funny that you are making extreme
statements in the alarmist direction is not denial. That is
interesting to me. You are just as extreme on the other side.
Dr. Lowenthal. Representative Huffman, your time has
exceeded. Thank you for your questions.
I now recognize Representative Tiffany for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Tiffany. That is a hard act to follow, but thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Ahtuangaruak, for Fiscal Year 2021, oil and gas
property taxes accounted for approximately 95 percent of the
North Slope Borough's total property tax revenue for essential
services. Is that accurate? Is that number correct?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. That is a borough number. We would have
to communicate with the borough. I assume that was formulated
with their efforts.
Mr. Tiffany. But is it correct that oil and gas property
taxes provide most of the budget for essential services up on
the North Slope?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. Yes, the state of Alaska and also the
borough are very reliant on oil and gas development.
Mr. Tiffany. And then the Willow Project would provide
additional services, is that right, or additional monies toward
those services: wastewater, drinking water, those type of
things. Is that accurate?
Dr. Ahtuangaruak. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, OK. Thank you very much, Doctor. I
appreciate those answers.
I would just like to comment--I don't know if you all
remember Copernicus. Copernicus advanced the theory that the
world was round, that Earth was round. He was excommunicated
from the Catholic Church, who was the arbiter of truth at that
point back--what was that, 500, 600 years ago, something like
that. When you say science is consensus, science is not
consensus. It is a little bit like Dr. Fauci saying, ``I am
science.'' And science is not consensus. Just go back to
Copernicus, who stood against the wind and said, yes, the world
is round. And he stood against all the leading scientists at
that time.
Dr. Dessler, why has Europe failed? They are having an
incredible energy crisis at this point. They did the big
conversion, much like California is doing now, and they are
having skyrocketing energy prices. Some people are questioning
whether they are going to be able to heat their homes. Why have
they failed when they went to renewables?
Dr. Dessler. Yes, that is an excellent question. The
problem is the Ukrainian war. They are relying on Russian----
Mr. Tiffany. OK.
Dr. Dessler. Can I finish with the answer? The Ukrainian
war is a fossil-fueled war. Putin invaded because he didn't
think people would respond because he knew he had their hands
around their necks. And that is the problem with needing fossil
fuels.
Mr. Tiffany. Sure. But the problem started before then. If
you go to England, where they also have made this so-called
transition, this started before the invasion of Ukraine.
Dr. Dessler. Yes, OK. If you go back in time----
Mr. Tiffany. I want to ask another question here, Dr.
Dessler.
Dr. Dessler. I would be happy to respond to that point,
though.
Mr. Tiffany. I appreciate it.
Dr. Dessler. Maybe someone else will ask me that question.
Mr. Tiffany. For Ms. Hopper, one of the No. 1 killers of
endangered species and threatened species at this point is
solar panels and wind turbines. Is there anything being done
about that by the industry?
Ms. Hopper. Yes. Actually, our C3 just released a report
today about the cohabitation and the ways in which solar panels
in particular--I can't speak to the wind--but the solar
industry is mitigating. There is a lot of work being done, and
I think it is based on some of the science and the data that we
spoke about earlier.
Mr. Tiffany. Because didn't they--I remember the--I hope I
pronounce this word right--the Ivanpah Project out in
California, they talked about, I think they call them flamers,
is that right, where birds fly into a solar array and they get
fried. Is that still happening?
Ms. Hopper. So, I believe, that was a concentrated solar
power project. That is not the technology widely used in the
United States today. That represents a very tiny percentage of
solar. I think that was a different issue then. But we
certainly remain committed to building and maintaining
environmentally sensitive and responsible projects.
Mr. Tiffany. Just like you are committed not to get solar
panels from China, but we continue to get them.
I am going to close with this----
Ms. Hopper. We don't actually get a lot of solar panels
from China, if you look at our imports.
Mr. Tiffany. I only have about 30 seconds left. So, let's
listen to what the previous questioner said, ``We have this
decade, we have this decade, or we are going to see the end of
the world as we know it.'' Remember back in 1975, the cover of
Newsweek and Time, it said global cooling is going to end the
world. As we know it, we are going to see mass global
starvation by the year 2000, as a result of global cooling. Now
it is global warming.
We have a former vice president who said the North Pole
polar ice cap will be gone. He said that in 2009. He said by
2013. We continue to see this the-sky-is-falling attitude, and
the American people, they see through it.
I am going to yield back. I wish I had a lot more time to
ask questions of the witnesses that are here, but I will have
to yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Representative Tiffany. I believe
there are no other Members present at this moment, so I am
going to conclude by recognizing myself.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, we do have Chair Grijalva here,
too.
Dr. Lowenthal. Chair Grijalva, I am going to recognize you
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
the Ranking Member for the hearing on this bill.
And the motivation behind the bill is exactly what other
Members said earlier in their questioning, it is about
accepting a fundamental reality. It is accepting the reality
that public lands and waters are a quarter of the contributors
to carbon emissions and greenhouse gas. And the reverse of that
is, we can be a quarter of the domestic solution in beginning
to turn that and to reach Biden's goals.
The intent of the legislation that we are discussing this
morning is pretty simple to me: mandating the Interior
Department to have a responsibility to the public to
demonstrate whether fossil fuel development on U.S. public
lands and waters is undermining the country's climate goals. If
the Department determines that more fuel fossil leasing and
permitting will prevent the United States from meeting our
emissions targets, then we should not be expanding coal, oil,
or gas development. I really do think that is it, and it is
that simple, and that is the approach of the legislation
because, with all due respect to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, my Republican colleagues, we have gone
through various issues.
Throwing the word ``extremist'' around has become
convenient lately in our dialogues. But nevertheless, we have
gone around since I have been on this Committee on the issue of
climate change. First, outright denial by Republicans--it
doesn't exist. Watch the snow melt in my hand analogies, and
then we move on. Then there was just simply ignore it. We have
the power right now. We have majority here or there, and let's
just ignore it. Then it became about avoidance. But like it or
not, the overwhelming, conclusive, realistic, fact-based, and
empirical information about the state of our climate and this
world is that we have to do something about it.
So, what is the next strategy that comes along? Delay.
Can't do it now. Gas is too high. Can't do anything now, need
to wait for China, India, the developing world, and the poor
countries, and the Third World to have stringent standards
themselves. We shouldn't do anything until that happens. We
should be exporting, and that way we create a basis for
creating and strengthening NATO and national security. Those
are not facts. That is political. That is political commentary.
The reality is that we are going to go through a transition
in this country, Mr. Chairman. And let me ask two of the
witnesses.
Dr. Dessler, this transition, we can either move in the
direction that this legislation addresses with discussion and
compromise at some level, or we can continue to delay and
ignore. And then there is going to be a transition. This could
be a transition that we time and have some control and some
investment in, or it could be a transition in which we leave
the majority of the American people behind to see how they
survive while we go forward, because science tells us, instinct
tells us, time tells us that that is the direction that we are
going.
Could you speak to those two? And which is the most
devastating to this economy of ours? Take a present snapshot or
a future snapshot of that economy. If the transition is sharp
and painful, or if the transition is this one that talks about
study, planning, management going forward.
Dr. Dessler. Right. So, we have a lot of experience that
abrupt transitions are bad. And I do think that there--I agree
with you that there will be a transition of renewable energy
occurring at some point, because the impacts of climate change
will simply not be acceptable to people, and the price of
renewable energy will continue to drop and continue to drop. In
fact, we see the transition happening today, just not----
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask--because I wanted to ask Ms.
Hopper.
Is there an even playing field between--on public lands and
waters in the development and analysis--and the development of
alternative renewable energy and the fossil fuel industry and
their practice on public lands and waters? Are we talking about
an even playing field, or a disadvantage/advantage?
Ms. Hopper. No, we do not have an even playing field. They
are much more resourced, much better staffed, much more
historical competency in the agencies, and much more land
available for development.
Mr. Grijalva. We have subsidized the fossil fuel industry
for decades upon decades in this country on our public lands,
and with minimal royalties, minimal consequences, no cleanup,
no mitigation. And I think it is time that we looked at making
an investment in the transition that is going to occur, whether
people like it or not.
I just want to be at the forefront to be able to say that
that transition needs to be fair, and it can't leave the
majority of the American people behind while those that can
afford it take care of themselves.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva.
I want to clarify something and understand from the
testimony. I want to ask Dr. Dessler.
Would you like to respond to Mr. Stein's assertion that
there is no climate crisis?
Dr. Dessler. Well, what the science clearly shows us is
that the Earth is warming, humans are to blame for the warming,
and the magnitude of future warming is going to be extremely
large. And the economists who look at that, tell us that the
cost of that could be extremely excessive.
And I would also point out--to the statement that Mr. Stein
made that we can adapt, that there is an enormous amount of
suffering embedded in that statement. If you look at what
adaptation really means, it means one of two things: either the
government is going to have to pay to help people adapt, higher
taxes--but of course, that is not what the people who say let's
adapt support. They just support throwing those people to the
wolves. I mean, who is going to pay to install air conditioning
for cities that need air conditioning? That is extremely
expensive.
And adaptation means let's let people suffer. It is exactly
the same kind of normalizing suffering that we did during
COVID. During COVID, people started dying. It is like, oh, that
is too bad. It is going to be exactly the same thing. Oh, these
people are suffering. Oh, I mean, what are you going to do? We
are going to normalize suffering.
And I think that it is a really a response that, if people
actually looked at what the science tells us, they would not
accept.
Dr. Lowenthal. Dr. Dessler, another question. The Biden
administration has set aggressive but necessary emission
reduction targets, including a 50 to 52 percent reduction in
emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, a net-zero economy no later
than 2050.
In your view, are these targets supported by science?
And what are the potential consequences if we don't reduce
our emissions in line with these targets?
Dr. Dessler. So, the world has agreed to aim for targets of
well below 2 degrees Celsius, with aspirational goals to reach
1.5 degrees Celsius in the Paris Agreement. I think those
targets are consistent with those goals. Those goals are
compromises between people who want lower goals and people who
don't want such high goals.
But the consequences of exceeding that could be dire. As I
said in my testimony, economists have no idea what the cost of
this is going to be. And it is easy to say we will adapt. But,
in fact, we don't know that that is true. Maybe we will, maybe
we won't. And since we have an alternative, renewable energy--
which is now our cheapest energy, let me just emphasize that--
and we could easily, at virtually no cost, switch to a grid
that is primarily an electrical grid. And we can talk about
non-electrical sources if you want.
But, I mean, we can solve this problem. So, I think that
these targets are certainly reasonable, and they are consistent
with what the world has agreed to for climate targets.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Dessler.
After listening to the discussion today, I want to return
to what is in H.R. 8802. This bill does not actually shut down
all fossil fuel extractions on public lands and waters
indefinitely.
It is true that, once the bill becomes law, there is going
to be a pause on issuing fossil fuel permits and holding fossil
fuel lease sales. However, the purpose of that is to give the
Interior Department and the Forest Service time to develop a
strategy and to analyze whether continued fossil fuel
development prevents the United States from achieving our
emission reduction goals, which you have just heard from Dr.
Dessler are reasonable.
The two agencies and their leadership will be responsible
for conducting a fair and thorough analysis. Section 4 of the
bill spells out the requirements for this strategy, once the
strategy is published. And if it finds that continued leasing
and permitting are consistent with the Biden administration's
target goals, the Interior Department is free to continue to
issue drilling permits and hold fossil fuel leases.
This is what the Republicans have been asking for, in terms
of an energy--how do we get there, what is Interior's energy
plan. This lays it out.
And I am going to yield back, thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, before you close it, may I have 1
minute?
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes, you may.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I wanted to thank you. If this is
going to be our last meeting as a Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources, I want to thank you for your leadership and
your fairness at these hearings. We are going to miss your
leadership. But on a personal level, I am going to miss our
friendship, and I want you to know that, and I wanted to state
that once again publicly. And California is going to miss a
great Representative.
And I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Representative Stauber. That is
very kind of you.
But with that, I would like to say--if I can find my notes
on it--we are going to conclude this witness panel.
First of all, are there any Members who have not had their
5 minutes, who I did not call upon, and who seek recognition to
ask questions now?
Then, 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 the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these 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 will be held open for 10 business days
for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
September 16, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
We write to reiterate our strong support for the Willow Master
Development Plan (Willow or Project) in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPR-A). The expeditious approval of this crucial project would
greatly benefit Alaska, our nation, and the world, while demonstrating
the Administration's commitment to addressing inflation, high energy
costs, the need for greater energy security, and environmental justice
initiatives.
On July 8, 2022, the Department of the Interior (Department or DOI)
published a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS)
for Willow. We appreciate the Department's recognition that 45 days
provided sufficient time for public comment on the SEIS. After years of
study and review, both the Administration and Alaskans can feel
confident that the Project will abide by the strictest environmental
considerations in the world, while being constructed and operated by a
company with an impressive record of safe and responsible development
on the North Slope.
Willow will be a significant economic driver for Alaska, creating
thousands of high-paying construction jobs, primarily with labor from
union workers, and hundreds of permanent positions. ConocoPhillips has
already invested more than $500 million in the development of Willow's
leases, which were acquired in 1999 during the Clinton administration,
and plans to spend upwards of $8 billion in total.
The Project will also generate as much as $17 billion in new
revenues for the federal government, the State of Alaska, the North
Slope Borough, and communities in and around NPR-A. In fact, the Bureau
of Land Management estimated in the draft SEIS that the Project would
generate $3.91 billion in new federal revenue, $3.54 billion in revenue
for the State of Alaska, and $1.25 billion in revenue for the North
Slope Borough.
As Julie Kitka, President of the Alaska Federation of Natives,
wrote to you, Willow ``could jumpstart our economy with thousands of
jobs and be a model in community and environmental stewardship for
years to come.'' \1\ Similarly, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic
Slope, North Slope Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation wrote
to you that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of
Natives, to the Honorable Debra Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Interior (Feb. 23, 2022).
``The current development plan for Willow incorporates local
knowledge and input, and it was specifically designed to protect
surface values and to protect the Inupiat way of life, including
subsistence . . . we are satisfied that the mitigation measures adopted
by the Department will protect the land, water, and wildlife resources
of the North Slope, as well as our communities' health and wellbeing.
We are united in our continuing support for the Willow project. And if
this Administration is truly committed to Alaska Native self-
determination and the meaningful involvement of our people in federal
decisions tied to our ancestral lands, it must listen to the elected
regional Alaska Native leadership who speak in unified support for
Willow, not to outside interests.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter from Morrie Lemen, Executive Director, Inupiat Community
of the Arctic Slope; Harry K. Brower, Jr., Mayor, North Slope Borough;
and Rex A. Rock, Sr., President and CEO, Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation, to the Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Department
of the Interior (July 21, 2022).
Those are many more individuals and groups that strongly support
the Willow project. For example, it has drawn backing from North Slope
mayors and communities, Alaska AFL-CIO, building trades, LIUNA,
Alaska's congressional delegation, and the President of the United
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States.
In the midst of their strong support, it has been 14 months since a
federal court remanded the alternatives analysis to BLM, so it is
reasonable for the agency to move forward and complete the permitting
process. We believe the final SEIS should identify the preferred
alternative; appropriately weight the purpose of energy production in
the NPR-A; and recognize the public interest in supporting energy
security and responsible resource development. The permitting process
must be completed by the end of 2022 at very latest so the project's
proponent can make a final investment decision and hire Alaskans in
time for the winter construction season. That decision will not be
possible, and none of those jobs will be created, in the absence of a
clean and timely Record of Decision (ROD).
We urge the Department to select a preferred alternative for the
final SEIS that facilitates at least as much infrastructure and access
to North Slope resources as Alternative E, and look forward to the
Department's swift re-approval of the Willow Master Development Plan.
This is a pivotal moment for our Alaska and our country, where the
timely approval of projects today can assure needed future supply and
help us avoid the type of crisis affecting many of our foreign allies.
The economic development and energy security benefits that Willow
will provide can be realized through a ROD that is completed in time
for this year's winter construction season to proceed. Alaskans are
counting on you to make that happen.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan,
United States Senator United States Senator
Mary Sattler Peltola,
Representative for All
Alaska
______
HECHO
(Hispanics Enjoying Camping, Hunting, and the Outdoors)
September 20, 2022
Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chairman
Hon. Pete Stauber, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman, Ranking Member Stauber, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
As an organization working to empower Hispanic leaders to engage
their communities in the conservation of our public lands in Arizona,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah we write to request your
assistance in ensuring that the Public Lands and Waters Climate
Leadership Act of 2022 is passed out of committee. The Public Lands and
Waters Climate Leadership Act of 2022 prohibits new federal fossil fuel
leasing and permitting until the Department of Interior (DOI) and the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) demonstrate that life cycle emissions from
additional oil, gas, and coal development are consistent with our
nation's 2030, 2035, and 2050 climate change targets. The bill also
requires DOI and USFS to develop, publish, implement, and regularly
update a comprehensive strategy to guide the agencies' efforts to
reduce GHG emissions and to keep the public informed of the progress.
This is an essential piece of legislation in preventing the worst
impacts of climate change from occurring.
The climate crisis is an existential threat to the American economy
and national security, the health and well-being of all people,
wildlife, our lands and oceans, and future generations. Our community
members in northern New Mexico are still experiencing the impacts of
the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon fire through flooding that is wreaking
havoc on water reservoirs and structures. In a review of this largest
wildfire in New Mexico's history, Forest Service Chief Randy Moore said
that ``[c]limate change is leading to conditions on the ground we have
never encountered before.'' It is imperative to prevent the worst
climate impacts from occurring. To do so, the U.S. must achieve our
emissions reduction targets which are supported by top climate
scientists, including:
Reducing net U.S. GHG emissions by 50-52 percent from 2005
levels by 2030;
Achieving 100 percent carbon-free U.S. electricity by
2035; and
Achieving net-zero emissions across the entire U.S.
economy by 2050.
The 2050 net-zero goal is based on multiple Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change reports, which find that limiting global warming to
1.5 degree Celsius requires the world to reach net-zero carbon dioxide
emissions by 2050 and net-zero emissions of all GHGs roughly a decade
after that. Despite these aggressive, science-based targets, DOI and
the USFS have not yet begun to develop a strategy to phase out oil,
gas, and coal leasing and production on America's public lands and
waters.
Together, Congress has achieved major policy victories and made
historic investments in clean energy, conservation, and environmental
justice communities, chiefly through the enactment of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act,
the most significant climate legislation in history. HECHO is proud to
have supported and advocated for these pieces of legislation, but more
needs to be done. The management of our public lands and waters is
outdated and DOI and USFS have a responsibility to demonstrate whether
fossil fuel development on U.S. public lands and waters is compromising
the country's climate goals.
The Public Lands and Waters Climate Leadership Act will ensure U.S.
public lands and oceans are part of the whole-of-government approach to
solving the climate crisis and achieving our emissions reduction
targets, not undermining these efforts as an unchecked source of fossil
fuel pollution.
On behalf of HECHO, we thank you for your attention to this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Camilla Simon,
Executive Director
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber
ALASKA NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE WILLOW PROJECT
NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
Office of the Mayor
April 15, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Comments of the North Slope Borough on the U.S. Department of the
Interior's Public Forum on the Federal Oil and Gas Program
Dear Secretary Haaland:
The North Slope Borough (Borough) submits the following comments in
response to the U.S. Department of the Interior's (Department) March
25, 2021 virtual forum regarding the federal oil and gas program.\1\ I
sincerely hope that the Department will recognize, in its Interim
Report and in its future work with respect to this program, the
complicated but critically important role that oil and gas has played
in advancing the interests of the people of the North Slope. I invite
you and your team to begin a collaborative and meaningful discussion
with the Borough and our residents about the future of oil and gas on
the North Slope of Alaska. I believe that it can be a productive
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We understand that the Department is seeking public comments to
inform its review of the federal oil and gas program as called for in
Executive Order 14008, and that such information will help inform an
interim report by the Department that ``will include initial findings
on the state of the federal conventional energy programs, as well as
outline next steps and recommendations for the Department and Congress
to improve stewardship of public lands and waters, create jobs, and
build a just and equitable energy future.'' Such a report must include
the voices of the people of Alaska's North Slope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Slope Borough
The Borough is the regional government for eight villages spread
across northern Alaska. The Borough's jurisdiction stretches from the
United States-Canada border across to the western border of Alaska, and
its coastline extends across the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. It is the
largest municipality in the United States by size. The Borough's
jurisdiction includes the Inupiat villages of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk,
Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow),
and Wainwright, as well as the Prudhoe Bay oil field, most of the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and much of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, including the coastal plain.
Approximately three-quarters of the Borough's nearly 10,000
permanent residents are Inupiat. The Inupiat and other indigenous
peoples of the region have depended on the subsistence resources of the
North Slope of Alaska's lands and waters for their physical health,
cultural well-being, and survival for thousands of years. Over 98% of
Inupiat households utilize subsistence foods, and the social fabric of
our communities revolves around subsistence. The importance of this
subsistence way of life to our communities goes beyond the need for
food. Our unique Inupiat culture, our traditions, and our links to our
ancestors and history are tied to our subsistence lifestyle, to our
custom of sharing with others, and to celebrating our connection to the
land and the ocean.
Oil and gas resources developed on the North Slope come from our
backyard--a place that has sustained our people for generations. The
Inupiat have strong cultural and subsistence ties to the areas where
oil and gas development on the North Slope occurs. We benefit from oil
and gas development but also have considerable risks. Thus, any form of
development on this land demands careful and balanced stewardship. We
consider ourselves to be the first and rightful stewards of these
lands.
Historical Significance of Federal Involvement in Oil and Gas
Development on the North Slope
Over the last 150 years, the North Slope of Alaska--land inhabited
by the Inupiat people for thousands of years--has been parceled out to
serve the interests of government, industry, and conservation. The
United States purchased Russia's property interests in Alaska in 1867.
In 1923, the United States set aside 23 million acres of the North
Slope--an area the size of Maine--as the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4.
Today, that area is called the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or
NPR-A, and pro-industry and pro-conservation groups are locked in a
never-ending fight to advance their competing interests in this land.
In 1960, the Department set aside land in northeastern Alaska,
which in 1980 became the 19 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, or ANWR. ANWR covers an area roughly the size of South
Carolina. Whatever this Administration may think about proposals to
develop oil and gas resources in ANWR, that area has long been claimed
by the United States and outside groups for conservation without the
consent or even meaningful consultation of the Kaktovikmuit--the Native
people who actually reside within ANWR, or other North Slope residents.
Alaska became a state in 1959, and the federal government granted
the new state an entitlement to 102 million acres of land. In 1968, oil
was discovered at Prudhoe Bay, and the state selected the land at
Prudhoe Bay over the objections of the Inupiat people who had inhabited
those lands.
In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA). This Act allowed Alaska Natives to select and acquire 44
million acres of land around the state but were also preventing from
selecting land at Prudhoe Bay because of the State's previously
selection. Also, the federal government had already set aside the NPR-A
and ANWR, even though these places had for thousands of years been home
to the Inupiat people of the North Slope.
Because the federal and state governments had already claimed
Inupiat land and resources, the Borough's first mayor and the founder
of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Eben Hopson, worked with other
Inupiat leaders to create the North Slope Borough, a home-rule
municipality that gave our people the ability to tax oil and gas
infrastructure and thereby benefit from the resources being developed
in our backyard.
Tax revenues collected by the Borough have for almost 50 years
enabled the Borough to provide basic services, which are frequently
taken for granted in most other communities in the United States, to
the eight villages on the North Slope. Oil and gas tax revenues support
health clinics, schools, our tribal college (the only tribal college in
Alaska), water and sewer infrastructure, search-and-rescue services,
and other essential services in all of our villages.
In a speech he gave in 1976, Eben Hopson talked about the discovery
by the federal government of natural gas near Utqiagvik, formerly
Barrow. The federal government had created the Naval Petroleum Reserve
in 1923 and, within the Reserve, the Navy established a small research
facility near Point Barrow. Exploratory drilling led to the discovery
of natural gas in 1949, and a gas field was developed near the
community. Natural gas was used to heat federal buildings like the
hospital, the Bureau of Indian Affairs school, and the Naval Arctic
Research Laboratory. But the Navy did not allow the community of Barrow
to use the gas to heat their homes.
In his speech, Eben Hopson spoke about the ``long, frustrating, 12-
year struggle to get permission to hook our homes in Barrow to gas
mains that crisscrossed Barrow through our back yards.'' Although it
sounds incredible today, the Navy refused to let the residents of the
Native village use the natural gas that came from our own backyard to
heat our homes. It took an act of Congress in 1963 to allow the Native
people of Barrow to buy their own natural gas back from the federal
government.
The point of telling this history is obvious: the North Slope oil
and gas resources literally come from our backyard. The development of
those resources has had an overall profound, positive impact on our
communities for 50 years. We don't have urban sprawl or malls or
factories, and we don't want them. But we do want to ensure that our
people continue to derive benefit from our land's natural resources to
sustain our communities and enable our participation in a modem
economy. Revenue from oil and gas development has been invested and
will continue to be invested in the immediate and long-term survival of
our communities. It is fundamental to our economic survival; it may not
always be that way, but it certainly is true today.
Importance of Oil and Gas Development to the Borough and Its Residents
Responsible oil and gas development is essential to the economic
survival of the Borough and its residents. Oil and gas activities are
the primary economic generator for our region, and North Slope oil and
gas development is by far the most significant source of funding for
the Borough's community services and infrastructure. The Borough's
primary source of revenue is taxes levied on oil and gas
infrastructure, such as processing equipment, pipelines, and other
facilities. For example, in 2016, the Borough received approximately
$373 million in oil and gas property taxes, accounting for 97% of the
$386 million in total property taxes collected by the Borough that
year. In 2017, oil and gas property taxes accounted for 95% of the
Borough's $392 million in total property tax receipts.
As noted above, these tax revenues enable the Borough to invest in
public infrastructure and utilities (including reliable sewer, water,
and heat) and to provide essential services to our eight communities,
including education (e.g., Alaska's only tribal college), health (e.g.,
clinics in each village, hospitals, schools, and increased sanitation),
and emergency services (e.g., aircraft and crew that conduct regular
medevac and search and rescue operations throughout the North Slope).
These revenues support our Department of Wildlife Management, through
which we deploy significant biological and traditional expertise to
gather information on important subsistence species and on the land and
water that is used to protect our residents' cultural and subsistence
resources and to balance our cultural and nutritional needs with
development of oil and gas resources. In addition to providing these
services, the Borough creates employment opportunities for local
residents; the local government sector (primarily, the Borough
government) is the largest employer of North Slope residents.
In addition to tax revenue, the Borough and its residents benefit
from the generation of royalty revenue sharing available to fund the
NPR-A Impact Grant Program, which administers grants from federal
revenues from oil and gas activities within the NPR-A, which are used
to offset development impacts or improve communities impacted by
development. Such grants are available to North Slope municipalities,
including both the Borough itself and its incorporated cities. These
grants are of significant benefit to the local communities.
For example, over the past ten years alone, the Borough has
received almost $30 million in NPR-A Impact Grants, which it used to
fund dozens of projects related to safety, local government,
infrastructure, wildlife and fisheries management, environmental
health, workforce development, subsistence, planning, and social and
cultural programs. A few highlights include:
$8,707,798--Community Winter Access Trails: to design,
construct, monitor, and maintain the North Slope Borough
Community Winter Access Trails (e.g. packed snow trails)
because there are no roads connecting most of our
communities with the rest of the state or country. Our
efforts include support for safe travel and an inspection
program within the NPR-A villages, documentation of data
needed to support lower cost connectivity for village
residents to the state road system, and quantifying the
potential benefits of establishing seasonal trails for all
NPR-A communities.
$2,750,000--Naval Arctic Research Laboratory Road: to
relocate of a portion of Stevenson Road which provides
access from the City of Utqiagvik to the Naval Arctic
Research Laboratory area complexes, including Illisagvik
College and subsistence sites beyond.
$1,187,500--Area-Wide Air Quality Study: to focus on
several aspects of air quality and air quality monitoring
by collecting baseline data in the NPR-A impacted
communities.
$1,400,000--NPR-A Village Comprehensive Land Use Plans: to
create and update comprehensive plans that serve as a guide
to the local governments when they are making decision on
budgets, ordinances, capital improvements, zoning, and
subdivision matters related to the community.
$1,174,100--EMS Equipment Upgrades & Emergency Training
Equipment: to support emergency medical services, fire
protection, and search and rescue capabilities.
$682,000--Inupiat Language Revitalization: to revitalize,
save, and sustain the Inupiatun dialect by building greater
awareness of the status of North Slope AE6upiatun, conduct
community gatherings in the NPR-A villages, develop after-
school language program, quarterly seminars supporting
Inupiatun fluency, and develop assessment tools to measure
language learning and language loss.
$377,500--Student Outreach/Science Education for NPR-A
Villages: to enhance the critical education of students in
the North Slope NPR-A villages regarding vital subsistence
resources and scientific and traditional knowledge studies
conducted by the NSB Department of Wildlife Management as a
means of building much needed capacity in the NPR-A
villages.
$300,000--NSBPD Training & Personnel for NPR-A Impacted
Communities: to provide police officers for the five NPR-A
villages.
$300,000--Health Impact Assessment--Mental Health: to
provide baseline data for future mental health impact-
related studies of residents across the North Slope Borough
that are within the NPR-A communities.
$250,000--Monitoring Teshekpuk Caribou Movements with
Satellite Telemetry: to monitor the movement and seasonal
distribution of the Teshekpuk caribou.
The benefits to the Borough and our residents from oil and gas
development goes beyond direct financial support from tax revenue and
Impact Grants. The Borough coordinates with local, state, tribal, and
federal entities to inform decision-making regarding new oil and gas
development, efforts to mitigate the impacts of development on Borough
residents and resources, and efforts to ensure that development
provides ancillary benefits in the form of infrastructure and other
benefits for our residents.
Additionally, infrastructure investments associated with oil and
gas development sometimes involve new roads and local facilities that
provide tangible benefits to our residents. On the North Slope, access
to subsistence areas and connectivity provided by roads is viewed by
many residents as a significant benefit. For example, roads associated
with industrial development near the Borough villages of Utqiagvik and
Nuiqsut have improved the ability of our residents to pursue
subsistence opportunities.
Exploration and development activities increase employment
opportunities for the residents of Borough villages. Currently,
economic opportunities in our communities are limited due to their
isolated locations. Development on the North Slope brings jobs to the
Borough's communities, including for Borough residents. More than one-
third of jobs held by Borough residents are directly or indirectly
supported by the oil and gas industry.
Finally, oil and gas development and exploration serve as economic
multipliers on the North Slope. Oil and gas activities increase
household income for local residents employed by industry or for whom
employment is supported by tax revenues. In addition, industry often
contracts with Alaska Native corporations, and local shareholders of
these Native corporations benefit from employment opportunities,
dividend income, and the myriad investments of the Native corporations
in the social, cultural, and economic welfare of the communities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, ConocoPhillips is utilizing local Alaska Native
corporations to perform work related to the Willow Project in the NPR-
A. Local corporation Nanuq Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Kuukpik
Corporation, Nuiqsut's local village corporation established pursuant
to ANCSA), employs Nuiqsut residents and serves as the Willow Project's
ice road construction contractor. In addition, staking and survey work
for the ice road is performed by UMIAQ Design, LLC (a subsidiary of
Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, Utqiagvik's local ANCSA village
corporation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact of Executive Order 14008 on the Borough
There is no question that federal, tribal, state, and local
governments all play a role in protecting public health. There is no
question that curbing the impacts of climate change is an important
piece of the federal government's public health responsibilities.
However, actions that unreasonably prohibit, restrict, or delay oil and
gas development on the North Slope will have a significant negative
impact on the Borough's economy and our ability to generate tax revenue
to provide critical services, including health and educational
services, to our residents.
The potential loss of tax revenue and NPR-A Impact Grants would
directly and significantly impair the Borough's ability to provide
essential government functions, support and grow our economy, provide
increased opportunities for our citizens, and provide for the health
and well-being of our residents. Further, loss of economic activity on
the North Slope means lost jobs and opportunities for our residents in
an area of the country that already struggles with significant
unemployment.
The Borough relies on the construction of new oil and gas
infrastructure to support the continued generation of critical tax
revenues for the Borough. As existing oil and gas production declines
in the legacy Prudhoe Bay fields, new sources of revenue generated by
new projects, such as ConocoPhillips' Willow Project, will allow the
Borough to maintain essential municipal services, including health and
educational services, for our residents and communities.
The Borough participated as a cooperating agency with the federal
government in the development of the Environmental Impact Statement for
the Willow Master Development Plan.
Through numerous meetings and workshops, we assisted in the
development of the alternatives, required operating procedures, and
best management practices for mitigating impacts to renewable resources
for the Willow Project. The Bureau of Land Management did an
exceptional job throughout this process in its outreach to local
entities. Furthermore, the Willow Project is a great example of
responsible oil and gas development. It is land based development
typical of the North Slope, which will be connected to existing
infrastructure and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. For all the
reasons noted above, The Willow Project will benefit the Borough and
support our ability to maintain essential municipal services to our
residents and communities. For these reasons, we have intervened in the
legal challenges to the Willow Project from outside groups that do not
understand or appreciate the mitigation measures and planning that went
into this project, as well as its importance to North Slope's
residents. We look forward to working with the Department of the
Interior in this litigation.
Conclusion
The Borough welcomes the opportunity to submit comments to the
Department on its Public Forum on the Federal Oil and Gas Program. We
encourage the Department to regularly and meaningfully engage with the
Borough as it moves forward in its evaluation of the federal oil and
gas program and other activities and decisions that impact our
communities and subsistence resources. The Department could benefit
from the unique perspective of the Borough and our residents about our
lands, waters and other resources.
Nearly three-quarters of Borough residents are Inupiat. The Inupiat
have strong cultural and subsistence ties to these lands and have a
vast knowledge about the area because we have depended on the
subsistence resources of the North Slope's lands and waters for our
physical health, cultural well-being and survival for thousands of
years. We rely on responsible and balanced resource development in
order to support economic and infrastructure development opportunities,
and access to services and the provision of employment and subsistence
benefits for our residents. The Department must consider the real-world
impacts of its decisions and hear from the people who will be directly
implicated by those decisions as it considers its responsibilities
under Executive Order 14008. We call on the Department to actively
engage with the people of the North Slope as it considers changes to
programs and policies that effect the everyday lives of our residents.
Sincerely,
Harry K. Brower, Jr.,
Mayor, North Slope Borough
______
August 1, 2022
Stephanie Rice
Natural Resources Specialist
BLM Alaska State Office
Re: Willow Master Development Project Draft Supplemental EIS Comment
Period
Dear Ms. Rice,
I am writing to you today as an Inupiat, resident of the North
Slope, the North Slope Borough (NSB) Assemblyman and President to the
Assembly during the NSB Planning Commission hearing on the Re-Zone for
the Willow Development Project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
(NPR-A). I am urging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to not extend
the public comment period beyond 45-days for the Willow Master
Development Project (Willow MDP) Supplemental EIS as so many
environmental organizations are requesting. In reviewing the
Supplemental EIS (SEIS) I have found that the BLM has done an excellent
job in identifying NEW and UPDATED information in the SEIS to address
the three items that were remanded to the BLM though the U.S. District
Court of Alaska. The BLM has also presented a new alternative,
Alternative E, that encompasses the new and updated information
presented to the agency since the prior EIS, most of the new data
responds to the items in the remand but other items reflect local
municipal decisions that were made by the North Slope Borough after the
FINAL Willow MDP EIS was published.
Based on my experience as an Assemblyman and resident of the North
Slope of Alaska, I can say that the Willow MDP has gone through an
extraordinary amount of public process starting with the 1998 NPR-A
Integrated Activity Plan-EIS and following 1999 Lease Sale and
continuing through to the 2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan-EIS (NPR-
A IAP-EIS) approved under Secretary of the Interior Salazar through to
the recent 2022 decision by Secretary of Interior Haaland to approve
the `No Action Alternative in the 2022 NPR-A IAP-EIS thereby restoring
the outcomes of the 2013 NPR-A IAP-EIS. It is important to recognize
that there are many people from the North Slope either as individuals,
members of the communities, or elected officials who have worked hard
with BLM to ensure that the North Slope is heard--therefore engagement
since the 1998 NPR-A IAP-EIS is important to understand. Ms. Rice, you
have been around our people long enough to recognize that we are a
story-telling culture and as such we have long and fast memories. We
have built protections into the various NPR-A Integrated Activity Plans
to ensure our lands, subsistence, and culture are respected and
represented in the documents--to us these are living documents that
have grown more comprehensive overtime. We, residents of the North
Slope of Alaska, remain committed to our involvement because these are
our homelands--these are the lands that we depend on for our sustenance
through subsistence. We have also found that development can be a
benefit to our subsistence activities by providing us access for
subsistence. As the BLM states in prior decisions these are
countervailing impacts that benefit us.
Many of us who engaged in the 2013 NPR-A IAP-EIS are aware that the
2013 Record of Decision was one of many compromises between our people
and communities, outside environmental groups, and industry. We
applauded Secretary Salazar and our own NSB mayor, Mayor Itta, at the
time because it represented a balanced approach toward leasing and
adding many new stipulations and required operating procedures into oil
and gas leases sold. The NSB played an enormous role in these
negotiations and compromises. Since 1998, our region has been engaged
in almost non-stop public engagement on NPR-A projects and plans and
the area now called Willow has always been part of the analysis and
process.
The BLM process is only one of the processes our people, local
governments, and entities engage in. Through the North Slope Borough's
Planning Department and Planning Commission, we have our own processes
to evaluate projects, accept public input, and apply our own
mitigations on both exploration and development projects within our
region.
Fifty years ago this year, the North Slope Borough was formed and
is currently the largest municipal government in the United States.
Through the foresight of our past elders, we have been able to achieve
many things but foremost of our accomplishments is the NSB's ability to
move our communities from third-world to first-world conditions in just
50 years. Is everything perfect? Not necessarily, but through these
changes our communities we have been able to increase the average life
span of our Inupiat people by over 13 years. We do this through the
revenue generated from property taxes. Over 95% of our tax revenue is
generated though oil and gas infrastructure. I understand climate is
changing, we see it every day, we are at the forefront of climate
change with a warming arctic, but our world has not yet weaned itself
from fossil fuels and therefore the Willow Project is critical for our
community's future. It allows us time to focus on diversifying our
local economy for long-term sustainability.
Our collective engagement on the project was first through its
exploration program and plans and subsequently in the Willow MDP after
ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc (CPAI) submitted to your agency an
application for development. The NSB Planning Department has a
permitting role in the project and through them and the operator, CPAI
our Assembly received regular updates on the project over time. These
updates are meant to be informative as well as to allow our Assembly
members to ask questions and raise concerns and issues we hear from our
community residents. Our borough was formed to provide local government
over our region, and I feel that decisions about development in our
region should weigh the positives that it allows our people through
providing a better quality of life, such as, clean water and
sanitation, local healthcare, emergency services, low cost housing, and
much more--these are things that the NSB provides to our communities,
this doesn't come from the federal or state government. For people to
object to our economy and ability to provide for our residents is
offensive to me. We are asking that 0.1637% of the 23 million acres
within the NPR-A be allowed for development to provide for these
services for our next generations.
Under North Slope Borough Municipal Code Sec. 19.60.060 the NSB has
the authority to rezone areas of the North Slope under Alaska Statutes
AS 29.40.010 and 29.040(a). As a result, anytime a development occurs
in an area not designated as resource development the NSB Planning
Department engages in an exhaustive re-zone analysis to ensure that the
lands meet the objectives and goals of the NSB Comprehensive Plan; that
growth and development of the Borough is in accordance with the values
of its residents; to identify and secure beneficial impacts of
development; to identify and avoid, mitigate or prohibit negative
impacts of development; and to ensure all future development is of the
proper type, design and location and is served by a proper range of
public services and facilities. This requires both public community
meetings and meetings and outside engagement of consultancy to achieve
and outcome that provides a robust analysis of the proposed project for
the development for revision of the NSB's Master Plan for rezoning As
an Assemblyman for over 14 years, I have a fiduciary responsibility to
understand and work with our administration to implement to the NSBMC
to be the best of our collective abilities.
I state this because the Willow MDP is a project that required a
rezone of the area under the NSB rezone process. Under Sec. 19.30.010
the Assembly shall review and act upon all applications for rezoning
and amendments to this title. The Assembly's decision shall be final
with respect to any rezone within the NSB boundaries. In May 2020 the
NSB Planning Department held a pre-application meeting with CPAI to
initiate the re-zone process of 37,654 acres of land to Resource
Develop District. The process of the NSB Planning Department is to
develop a Master Plan for the project to ensure that the project meets
the objectives and policies of the NSBMC Sec. 19.70.050--Coastal
Management and Area-wide Policies to protect subsistence, cultural,
compliance with state and federal regulations, and to minimize negative
impacts to our region. This process included a public comment period
and meetings with key stakeholders in Nuiqsut to get input.
Following the work of the Planning Department and through the
separate meetings of the Planning Commission, on January 5, 2021, the
Assembly hearing started and continued into January 6th and 7th. As
President of the Assembly, it was critically important that the
Assembly listen to all stakeholders within the North Slope, and I
therefore lifted our normal three-minute limit for public comments, as
provided for under Sec. 2.04.080(B)(2), feeling this imposed undo time
constraints on our public speakers on a project of this nature. After
three days of very extensive testimony on certain issues with the
rezone from the community of Nuiqsut, the Assembly directed the
Planning Department to meet with constituents from Nuiqsut and CPAI to
address ways to mitigate the concerns from the community. On January
15th, the parties presented changes to the project to the Assembly.
After a multi-day thorough vetting of interested parties, the Assembly
received revised Ordinance 75-06-75 with changes to the Master Plan and
additional stipulations. The revised negotiated Ordinance and Master
Plan was approved through a majority vote by the Assembly.
It is important for BLM to take all the North Slope Borough's
involvement and efforts into account when evaluating whether to extend
the public comment period for the Willow MDP SES. All our involvement,
public participation, working with the BLM as a Cooperating Agency on
both the Willow MDP EIS and Willow MDP SEIS should be meaningful to the
process. Our local input should carry weight over the influence of
outside parties from both the environmental organization but also from
the U.S. Congress. We are elected officials of our municipal government
and as such we are required to address issues within our region and on
our ancestral lands--we are the ones who know what works and doesn't
work within our boundaries. When the North Slope Borough, the Inupiat
Community of the Arctic Slope, the Native Village of Nuiqsut, and the
City of Nuiqsut are on the cover of the Draft Willow MDP SEIS that says
our region was engaged and involved in working with the BLM to address
the issues directed by Judge Gleason in her Remand which caused the
Supplemental EIS to be conducted.
Through our review of the Willow MDP SEIS and the new Alternative
E, many of the items in the Alternative E, are aligned with NSB
Ordinance 75-06-75 and accompanying Master Plan. As an example, the new
Alternative E and our Master Plan are aligned in the removal of BT4
drill site and delaying approval of the BT5 drill site. These were
issues that we heard about from Nuiqsut and through this alternative it
appears that BLM has mitigated those concerns.
I want to reiterate to you that due to the above and the
comprehensive nature of our involvement through our own municipal code
and as a cooperating agency there is no need to increase the public
comment period beyond the current 45-day period for the Draft Willow
MDP and there is certainly no need to schedule meetings in Washington
DC over our region. The Biden Administration has made several
statements about increase and strengthening its bonds with indigenous
peoples and to ignore our participation and involvement in NPR-A
decisions over the last 24 years runs counter to this .
Sincerely,
John Hopson, Jr.,
North Slope Resident, NSB Assembly Member,
and Past Assembly President
______
INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF THE ARTIC SLOPE
NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION
July 21, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
We write to strongly oppose requests for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to extend the comment period for the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed
Willow Master Development Plan (Willow). The requested extension would
provide no additional benefit in terms of informed environmental review
for the project and would serve no purpose other than attempting to
delay the project beyond the point of economic feasibility to the
detriment of the Alaska Native people who call this region home.
Our region has a multitude of Alaska Native entities that work
together to effectively serve, provide for and enrich the lives of the
Inupiat people we represent. Our three entities, the Inupiat Community
of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), the North Slope Borough (Borough) and
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) are three of those entities.
While our roles are defined, our constituencies overlap which is why we
work closely together to protect the cultural and economic interests of
the North Slope Inupiat.
Established in 1971, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope is a
federally recognized regional tribal government for the North Slope and
represents over 13,000 Inupiat tribal members. The mission of ICAS is
to exercise its sovereign rights and powers for the benefit of tribal
members, to conserve and retain tribal lands and resources including
subsistence and environmental issues, to establish and carry out
justice systems including social services under Inupiat tribal law and
custom, and to increase the variety and quality of services provided to
current tribal members and for our future generations.
The North Slope Borough is a home rule government located above the
Arctic Circle that represents the roughly 10,000 residents in the eight
communities of the region. The Borough's jurisdiction includes the
entire National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the villages
within it--Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Utqiagvik, and Wainwright. In 1972, the
Inupiat people of the North Slope formed the Borough to ensure our
communities would benefit from oil and gas development on their
ancestral homelands. It was the first time Native Americans took
control of their destiny through the use of a municipal government. The
Borough exercises its powers of taxation, property assessment,
education, and planning and zoning services. Taxes levied on oil and
gas infrastructure have enabled the Borough to invest in public
infrastructure and utilities, support education, and provide police,
fire, emergency and other services. Elsewhere in rural Alaska, these
services are typically provided by the state or federal governments.
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation was incorporated pursuant to the
passage of ANCSA. ASRC is owned by and represents the business
interests of our approximately 13,600 Inupiat shareholders, many of
whom reside in the eight communities on the North Slope. ANCSA
extinguished aboriginal land title and conveyed nearly five million
acres of fee-simple land to ASRC for the cultural and economic benefit
of our Inupiat shareholders. Mandated by Congress to not only operate
as a for-profit corporation but to serve the social and welfare
interests of the people it represents, ASRC is committed to providing
financial returns to our Inupiat shareholders in the form of jobs and
dividends, and to preserving Inupiat culture and traditions.
Contrary to the blatant mischaracterizations in the extension
requests and the false narratives promoted by outside groups, the
Willow project has been subject to numerous environmental reviews and
public comment periods under NEPA and other environmental statutes.
Willow is not a new project requiring public review of voluminous newly
available documentation. This is the fifth public comment period for
the Willow EIS. By our calculation, by the end of the current comment
period, BLM will have provided 215 days of public comment and hosted 25
public meetings on the Willow EIS.
Further, the scope of this latest review was limited to a discrete
set of issues that Judge Gleason identified in her August 2021 opinion.
BLM has helpfully provided clear notations in the updated draft SEIS,
making for an easy review of newly added information and analysis. To
suggest that public review requires additional time beyond the present
45-day comment period belies the true motives of those seeking the
extension--to delay the project beyond economic feasibility and to let
Willow ``die a death by a thousand cuts.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joshua Partlow, Washington Post, ``A `carbon bomb' or
desperately needed energy? Alaskan village holds key to Biden's climate
policy,'' (June 26, 2022) (quoting Trustees for Alaska attorney Bridget
Psarianos, ``My hope is that Willow dies a death by a thousand
cuts.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interior Department's plan for Willow was developed through a
years-long, rigorous environmental review process with significant
involvement by and support from local communities and Alaska Native
entities, particularly the North Slope Borough, the regional municipal
government for our region, which served as a cooperating agency in the
development of the EIS for Willow. Furthermore, given its location
within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), the Willow
project area has been subject to additional environmental review
associated with the planning and development of the NPR-A Integrated
Activity Plan. Willow is a well-planned, highly vetted, environmentally
responsible project.
The groups requesting additional time have had ample opportunity to
review the project and are well-acquainted with the environmental
review documents. They have provided input at every stage of the public
comment process. Some have litigated the EIS in federal court. Their
purported need for additional time to review this limited SEIS is
belied by their actions and their familiarity with the project and its
environmental documents. BLM's provision of 45-days to review the
information in the draft SEIS--which is the standard comment period
length for an EIS--is more than sufficient.
These extension requests serve political interests, not those of
the people of the North Slope of Alaska. It is not lost on us that the
requested--but unnecessary--extension would put the comment deadline in
mid-November, conspicuously close to politically significant mid-term
election dates. Those seeking such extensions are not looking out for
the interests of the people who will be harmed by any further delay of
Willow's review.
Though the requested extension may not seem significant, every
project delay also delays the project's economic, infrastructure, and
employment benefits to North Slope communities and our people.
Responsible oil and gas development is essential to our economic
survival. It is the primary economic generator for our region, and
taxes levied on oil and gas infrastructure are by far the most
significant source of funding for our local government's community
service and infrastructure. All actions that unreasonably prohibit,
restrict, or delay oil and gas development in our region significantly
impact our ability to provide critical services to our people. And loss
of economic activity on the North Slope means lost jobs and lost
opportunities for our people in a region where economic opportunity is
generally low, and the cost of living is extremely high.
ConocoPhillips is prepared to start construction by the 2022-2023
winter season to bring this project to fruition and to start bringing
the benefits of this development to the people of the North Slope as
early as this year. A delay is unnecessary, harmful and contrary to the
interests of the Alaska Native people who call the North Slope home.
The current development plan for Willow incorporates local
knowledge and input, and it was specifically designed to protect
surface values and to protect the Inupiat way of life, including
subsistence. As we have expressed repeatedly in comments submitted to
the Department, we are satisfied that the mitigation measures adopted
by the Department will protect the land, water, and wildlife resources
of the North Slope, as well as our communities' health and wellbeing.
We are united in our continuing support for the Willow project. And if
this Administration is truly committed to Alaska Native self-
determination and the meaningful involvement of our people in federal
decisions tied to our ancestral lands, it must listen to the elected
regional Alaska Native leadership who speak in unified support for
Willow, not to outside interests.
We urge you to deny the requests for this wholly unnecessary
extension. BLM should proceed with allowing review and comment on the
draft SEIS as scheduled so this project that is of great significance
to the people of the North Slope can move forward without further undue
delay.
Sincerely,
Morrie Lemen, Executive
Director, Harry K. Brower, Jr., Mayor,
Inupiat Community of the
Artic Slope North Slope Borough
Rex A. Rock, Sr., President
and CEO
Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation
______
ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES
February 23, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: AFN Continued Support for the Willow Project
Dear Secretary Haaland:
On behalf of the Co-Chairs and Board of Directors of the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN), I write to share our long-standing support
for the Alaska Willow Project in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
(NPR-A).
The Willow project has undergone stringent environmental permitting
and a vigorous community engagement process. It was planned based on
the requirements of the 2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan under the
Obama-Biden Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest
standards for environmental stewardship. The permitting and
environmental review process encompassed a period of well over two
years and included multiple rounds of public comment and public
meetings with Alaska Native stakeholders. AFN appreciates the outreach
and communication between ConocoPhillips and the Alaska Native
community and considers the process a model for other development
initiatives.
AFN understands that the need for a proactive whole of government
approach to deal with climate change; however fossil fuels will be with
us for quite some time to come, and projects like Willow can help
bridge the gap. As such, delaying Willow any further will only hinder
Alaska's economic recovery. The Willow Project could jumpstart our
economy with thousands of jobs and be a model in community and
environmental stewardship for future opportunities.
Additionally, the international crisis in Ukraine highlights the
Willow project's importance to our national security. The looming
invasion of Ukraine by Russia is already stressing global energy
markets. The Willow Project is a critical opportunity for the U.S. to
expand domestic energy supplies and security while creating economic
opportunities to help Alaska recover from the pandemic. As such, I
strongly urge you to support the current record of decision and allow
the Willow project to move forward as planned and previously approved.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have questions, please
feel free to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Julie Kitka,
President
______
ARA--ANCSA Regional Association
ANVCA--Alaska Native Village Corporation Association
February 4, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary Nominee
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Nominee Haaland:
The ANCSA Regional Association (ARA) represents the 12 Regional
Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) which was approved by Congress and signed into law by President
Nixon in 1971. The Alaska Native Village Corporation Association
(ANVCA) represents 177 village and urban corporations created by ANCSA.
Together these organizations represent over 150,000 Alaska Native
shareholders.
We write today to urge the Department of Interior not to delay the
ConocoPhillips Alaska Willow Project given the exhaustive and thorough
review process it has already undergone, and the urgent need for
vetted, economic opportunities for safe development in Alaska.
ARA and ANVCA strongly support responsible resource development in
Alaska and are concerned about reports that the DOI intends to, once
again, review the EIS Record of Decision (ROD) for Willow, which could
delay or defer the project's progress.
There is no basis for further review of the ROD, given the
extensive record of public hearings, documented BLM efforts to address
all issues raised through public comment, completion of an in-depth
environmental analysis, and the over 270 stipulations and best
management practices the project will be required to follow. The Willow
EIS was performed under the rigorous process in place during the Obama
Administration, and was not expedited or granted any special
consideration. The EIS took more than two years to complete and the
report itself totals more than 2,600 pages of in-depth analysis. Given
the extensive nature of the process used to perform the Willow EIS, we
request that the Department of Interior not delay the Willow project
for further unnecessary analysis, or political rhetoric.
The State of Alaska has been in recession for over five years, well
before the COVID pandemic hit, which then caused further negative
impacts in every industry important to our state. The federal
government should be looking at opportunities to help Alaska respond to
these impacts rather than exacerbating them. Delaying a project like
Willow, which has already passed a rigorous EIS process, will cause
ripple effects throughout the Alaskan economy. This project will
support over 2,000 construction jobs and hundreds of long-term jobs,
while providing over $2 billion in revenues to the State of Alaska and
$7.6 billion in federal royalties. For context, $2 billion is roughly
the size of the current budget deficit faced by our state. Revenues
received by this project allows our rural communities to receive
continued support to schools, health clinics and basic public services
like water and sewer treatments.
The Willow Project has passed every environmental and community
test put before it and would provide a much-needed economic boost to
Alaska. Delaying it any further will only bring more harm to our state.
It also harms the economy and budget of the North Slope Borough, the
local government most closely impacted by the federal government's
decision for review.
Best Regards,
Kim Reitmeier, Executive
Director, Hallie Bissett, Executive
Director,
ARA ANVCA
______
CITY OF UTQIAGVIK
CITY OF WAINWRIGHT
CITY OF ATQASUK
April 26, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
We are writing you today, collectively, as three city municipal
Mayors from the North Slope of Alaska representing the communities of
Utqiagvik, Wainwright, and Atqasuk--all three located within the
boundaries of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska or NPR-A. First, as
indigenous Alaskan Native Inupiat communities of the region, we would
like to congratulate you on your confirmation as the first indigenous
woman to be selected for your position--we are truly honored and
hopeful that through your position as Secretary of the Department of
the Interior (DOI) will have a positive and profound impact on the
Inupiat, and all residents, within our region. Your department plays a
significant role in Alaska and we trust that we can develop a good
relationship with the DOI as we move forward during your tenure as
Secretary.
Our region, the North Slope of Alaska, covers approximately 90,000
square miles above the Arctic Circle and is larger than 39 other
states. It stretches from Point Hope on the Chukchi Sea in the west to
the Canadian Border on the east and encompasses lands north of the
continental divide in the Brooks Range. These are our lands and region
and are home to eight Inupiaq communities. To provide context, our
coastline from Point Hope to Canada, spans a similar distance as the
distance from Savannah, Georgia to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--yet we
have a single highway within our region. Conversely, if our coastline
were overlain on the west coast, it would cover the distance between
Mexico to Oregon. We provide these examples to show you the scale of
our region and impress upon you that we do not have intra-region
transportation infrastructure like roads and rail taken for granted
elsewhere in our country. It has been home to us for more than ten
thousand years and our continued inhabitation of the lands within the
North Slope has been critical to our culture and survival as indigenous
people. The North Slope is also home to the largest municipal
government in the United States, the North Slope Borough (NSB), whose
municipal powers cover a region greater than the size of Minnesota.
As Mayors we represent the Cities of Utqiagvik, a first-class city
incorporated in 1959; Wainwright--a second-class city incorporated in
1962; and Atqasuk, a second-class city incorporated in 1982; all
located within the NSB boundaries and hold our powers through the State
of Alaska as First-Class and Second-Class Cities under the Home Rule
Powers of the NSB.
The NPR-A is our backyard; it provides us with our subsistence
resources and our economic sustainability. The eight communities across
the North Slope are dependent on the infrastructure the NSB provides
for life, health, and safety. The costs of this infrastructure are high
and the source of the NSB's ability to provide for our basic needs
comes from its taxing authority on oil industry on the North Slope.
Since the development of oil in our region we have seen the life
expectancy of our people increase by 13 years, on average. This
increase in our life span has come through first-world amenities like
clean water, sanitation, health clinics, and other essential services.
We cannot turn back the clock despite what outside groups would like to
see.
We agree that our climate is changing; we are at the forefront of
some of these changes and see them daily. Our culture is not one of
being victims to circumstances--we are adaptable--and we are realists.
We understand that the world is changing, and we want to see changes
occur with respect to how we address the changes BUT we believe local
indigenous leaders and traditional knowledge needs to make and inform
the decisions so as not become victims to sweeping policy changes that
will have major impacts on our survivability. The policies through
various Executive Orders and Secretarial Orders coming from the Biden
Administration can have a greater impact on our communities than
changes to our environment will have in the long-term by significantly
reducing our local economy, without allowing time or resources to
integrate new technologies and diversify.
Our region supports oil development. It was not always this way,
and in fact, we fought against development after its initial discovery
at Prudhoe Bay. The discovery of hydrocarbons at Prudhoe Bay was the
main driver that led to the passage of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). While ANCSA is a true improvement on the Indian
Relocation and Reservation programs utilized elsewhere in America, our
forefathers fought against it; the North Slope region was the only
region in the State that rejected ANCSA because it took too much and
gave too little. Yet after ANCSA was passed, our early leaders,
successfully fought for the right to have a significant role and voice
in oil and gas development on their traditional land and ``have worked
hard to balance the health of the environment and culture with the
survival of our people and communities.'' (Quote from Mayor Brower from
Voice press release on EO.) In 1972, the NSB was formed, as a home-rule
government to have the ability to exercise planning and zoning, to
implement property tax, and to administer schools for its eight
communities. In 2020, the cost to the NSB to maintain infrastructure,
schools, manage wildlife, and administer its school system cost
approximately $400 MM. The money to pay for these services--in fact,
over 95% of the borough funding--comes to the NSB in the form of
property tax on oil and gas infrastructure within the borough. This
same revenue stream that has modernized the North Slope is passed along
and provides benefits to other regions and communities in turn through
the revenue-sharing framework set up in ANCSA.
To have policies that would interfere with that revenue source
without offering to use alternative sources of economic sustainability
would be a sham and a taking--and completely at odds with the Biden
Administrations alleged dedication to consultation and equality. We
have been `playing' by the federal rulebook since the discovery of oil
on the North Slope. In fact, through the NSB Planning and Wildlife
Management Departments, we use our traditional knowledge to identify
changes in the environment for federal agencies to incorporate into
their decision documents. We understand the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) and are experts in the process through our
borough, tribes, ANCSA Corporations and through the public process. We
are sophisticated and we actively participate in many forms throughout
NEPA process.
Our City Councils have felt the need, due to the negative impacts,
ambiguity, and contradictions in the various President Biden Executive
Orders (EO), to pass individual resolutions supporting NPR-A leasing
and developments and more particularly projects like the Willow
Development (see attached resolutions). These resolutions were passed
unanimously and reflect the concerns of our residents regarding our
long-term economic sustainability as a region. We have watched EO's,
and Secretarial Orders (SO) get issued that have a significant impact
on our region. These EO's and SO's significantly undermine our
participation in the processes, and we are appalled that your agency,
Madam Secretary, is focused more on the environment than on our people.
This has long been our experience with the environmental non-
governmental organizations (eNGO's) who have worked hard to erase us
from our own homeland.
In fact, your recently issued SO-3352, could cancel our
contributions as a region to the 2020 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan-
Environmental Impact Statement (IAP-EIS). This would be a breach of our
long-standing relationship with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) who
we have worked with through multiple IAP-EIS's since the 1999 NPR-A
IAP-EIS, over the course of several administrations and have developed
a trust in their ability to listen to us as significant stakeholders in
the region. While you and your department are raising questions about
the process and science of the BLM, we can tell you, having
participated in NEPA with the BLM for over 20 years, we did not see any
changes, short-cuts, or poor science performed by the BLM in the 2020
NPR-A IAP-EIS and to imply there was undercuts our experience and
undercuts your agency. The only thing from our perspective that has
changes over time is the number of embedded policy personnel in the DOI
that have fought us, as indigenous people, for many years. Executive
Order 13175, recently refreshed by President Biden, requires
consultation with Indigenous People, the City of Wainwright has >97%
Alaskan Native Inupiat population, the City of Atqasuk has >92% Alaskan
Native Inupiat, and the City of Utqiagvik has >52% Alaskan Native
Inupiat and the NSB represents >78% of the Alaskan Native Inupiat
across the region.
We are very familiar with DOI consultation processes for both
tribal and ANCSA entities because we participate in both. The DOI
established its ANCSA consultation policy in August 2012 under
Secretary Salazar to recognize the differences between tribes and ANCSA
corporations in Alaska where we have a different relationship with the
land. ANCSA severed our tribal relationship with the land and Congress
developed a mechanism to provide lands to the newly formed ANCSA
corporations for economic development purposes as payment for the
lands. Over time this created friction between the tribes and the
corporations because the federal government's trust responsibilities to
tribes no longer extended to the ANCSA corporations. To be clear,
tribal members are also shareholders of the ANCSA corporations and both
are residents of our cities. Secretary Salazar recognized that, in
Alaska, consultation was occurring with the tribes but the tribal
entities themselves did not own the land and that decisions were being
made on ANCSA lands without their input. We recognize that there are
significant differences between tribal consultation and ANCSA
consultation policies which is why we used both on the North Slope to
assure ourselves that we are being heard throughout the NEPA process
and are not being drowned out by the eNGO's--we are diligent in
ensuring our concerns are acknowledged and addressed. Both consultation
policies require that consultation begins early and is meaningful, that
ANCSA consultation will help to ensure that future Federal action is
achievable, comprehensive, long-lasting, and reflective of ANCSA
Corporation input. This means that consultation must be a deliberative
process by the agency. While we are delighted that President Biden re-
emphasized EO 13175 we have not felt that the agency, BLM, has
neglected its duty for continued and meaningful consultation, in fact,
we feel just the opposite.
While we represent all the residents of our region, it is important
to point out that a large percentage of our residents are Native
Alaskan Inupiat and therefore are also tribal members and are
shareholders of ANCSA Corporations. It was a request by the NSB that
caused the BLM to initiate the 2020 NPR-A IAP-EIS to address community
transportation corridors and other corridors across the NPR-A. The NSB
also participated as a Cooperating Agency to review the science and
ensure that the needs of the Inupiat were being addressed through
mitigation measures.
Under the 2013, NPR-A IAP-EIS based on evidence presented by North
Slope leaders, Secretary Salazar directed the formation of the NPR-A
Working Group (NPR-A WG). The formation of the NPR-A WG necessitated by
the fact that the local voice, the indigenous voice, was being drowned
out by the eNGO's in our region. The NPR-A WG is comprised of elected
leaders on the North Slope, including the NSB, tribes, cities and ANCSA
corporations, and its purpose is to act as an advisory body to the BLM.
The objective of the NPR-A WG is to provide a forum for meaningful and
regular input regarding the implementation of oil and gas leasing, land
use conflicts, scientific studies, special area boundaries, and
infrastructure projects supporting onshore and offshore oil and gas
development such as production facilities and pipelines. We were elated
to have a special private forum to engage with the agency, and we, as a
region, were able to establish a strong relationship with BLM through
this forum.
As city mayors, we are members of the NPR-A Working Group and Mayor
Hopson of the City of Wainwright acts as Co-Chair of the forum.
Recently we have realized the frustrating reality once again, have
challenged the BLM and outside organizations began participating in the
NPR-A WG meetings claiming it falls under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), which was not the original purpose or structure
of the NPR-A WG. We need this closed forum to exist to allow our voices
to be heard and considered and to speak openly and directly to the BLM
not to be drowned out by the outside influences and eNGO's who feel
like they know better how to manage the lands and waters we depend on
than we do as the original indigenous peoples of the region.
Through our multiple entities and facilities, we actively
participate in the NEPA process, sometimes at significant expense
through time, resources, travel, and consultants. It is not easy for us
to participate in evening public meetings--for free--after working a
full day, yet participate we do, confident in the knowledge that we are
the experts of our lands and resources. The reason that we are
expending so much effort to describe our participation in consultation,
public hearings, and meetings with the BLM is that they listen to our
concerns and work through alternatives, stipulations, and mitigation
measures that are meaningful--so when a Record of Decision is issued,
we feel that it is our Record of Decision. To undermine this with no
engagement is to undermine us as a region and us as the indigenous
Alaska Native Inupiat. These IAP-EIS's are important to our region and
borough for long-term economic sustainability. We need these projects.
Our level of participation was the same throughout the Willow
Master Development Plan (Willow) as it was for the Greater Moose's
Tooth GMT1 and GMT2 Developments. Willow is a very important new
project in the region that can sustain our communities for years into
the future and continues to evolve our regional self-determination
through the NSB. Our region, unlike many in the State of Alaska, is not
run from government transfer funds either from the State or the federal
government; we rely on the NSB to provide services. As mentioned
before, it takes approximately $400 MM per year to continue to support
infrastructure within the eight communities of the North Slope. We have
entered the first world and want to stay there--yet at this time there
are no alternatives for us other than continued development of our oil
resources.
Throughout the course of the NEPA process, BLM conducted frequent
outreach to our communities. Because the NSB has statutory authority
for planning, zoning, and permitting within its jurisdiction, the NSB
Planning Department and Wildlife Management Departments; each
separately reviewed the Willow project for compliance with its
municipal code and incorporated additional mitigations on the Willow to
address local concerns with respect to impacts to subsistence. During
the Scoping Process for Willow the Master Development Plan received
comments from the North Slope constituents requesting significant
changes to the project. In addition, the project proponent,
ConocoPhillips, held over 100 meetings with local NPR-A communities to
listen directly to our concerns. As a result, BLM and the NSB worked
with the applicant, to incorporate changes into a Supplemental Willow
Master Development Plan EIS and Record of Decision. This implies that
the system is working. It proves to our people that they do have a
voice to make changes to the major project. It also proves that the BLM
is active through consultation. And lastly, it proves that the project
proponent values our input and listened to our concerns. Isn't this the
way its supposed to work Madame Secretary? The outcome and revised
Willow project may not be what some of the new DOI appointments would
have liked however it followed a process that our local stakeholders
participated in and support.
According to the BLM, Willow can provide the NSB $1.2 bn in
property tax revenue over the 30-year life of the project. On top of
that, approximately $2.3 bn will be made available through the NPR-A
Impact Grant Fund Program which administers grants from the State
portion of the federal royalties to offset develop impacts or improve
communities impacted by development. These grant funds are critical to
the small city governments that we represent by providing for local
self-determination and critical additional infrastructure to improve
the quality of life in our communities. It has taken over 40 years for
industry development on federal land in NPR-A to begin (i.e., GMT1,
GMT2 and now Willow) and just when the projections show a significant
increase in grant revenue, for new infrastructure, maintaining
operations, and supporting our residents, the future is now at risk due
to policies of this administration. Projects like Willow are important
in that they meet the requirements of EO 13985 which speaks to
addressing racial inequality and providing jobs to underserved
communities.
We are aware that several eNGO's have filed lawsuits against the
project asking for environmental justice however where is the
indigenous justice should we advocate for a project that can
significantly benefit us? We agree that climate is changing because we
are at the forefront of those changes in the Arctic. We also know that
non-renewable resources are not the future, however we require time to
find alternatives to sustain our economy. Two of our organizations in
our region, the North Slope Borough, and the Voice of the Arctic
Inupiat (a non-profit comprised of tribes, municipal governments, ANCSA
corporation, and educational institutions) have recently joined the
Clean Hydrogen Coalition to look at alternatives in `blue energy' on
our way to green energy. Converting enormous volumes of natural gas
stranded on the North Slope to hydrogen and sequestering the carbon may
provide us with a steppingstone toward our next economy. We are not
blind to change--one of the critical values of the Inupiat culture is
adaptation to change--we could not have survived in the Arctic for over
ten thousand years without adapting to its changes.
While your department, Madam Secretary, seems to be making
decisions under the guise of EO 13990 and finding deficiencies in
decisions made prior to its issuance we are finding in our review,
several inconsistencies and an ambiguity embedded in the plethora of
EO's and SO's and from our perspective they are not being used to help
us but instead to further hinder local Inupiat self-determination. We
are asking you, Madam Secretary, to respect our participation and to
not throw all our hard work away and start anew. That would be an
afront to those of us who were actively consulted with by the BLM
through the entire NEPA process on all projects within our region. You
cannot have an EO requiring indigenous consultation and a second EO
that completely ignores that consultation. This administration has
called for transparency and yet we have not seen any transparency in
and of the EO's or in your SO's. In fact, it seems to be the opposite,
as Alaskan Native Inupiat, we should have been invited for consultation
with your department on each SO that has been issued so far--yet we
have not. That speaks for itself.
We are asking you and your agencies not to undercut us as a people
and to honor the work that we have done on the 2020 NPR-A IAP-EIS and
the Willow Master Development Project. We know these are not projects
that the environmental organizations are supportive of, but this was
our land before it was the federal government, and you have people and
inside your agency that have filed many lawsuits against decisions that
have a significant effect on the well-being of the indigenous Inupiat
of the North Slope region.
Thank you for your time and attention to our concerns. We look
forward to future meetings and engagement both with you, Madam
Secretary, and your department to better introduce ourselves and to
provide additional information on the North Slope of Alaska.
We hope that we can find times to meet face-to-face once COVID-19
restrictions are lifted. Again, congratulations on your confirmation as
Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Mayor Fannie Suvlu, Mayor John Hopson, Jr.
City of Utqiagvik, Alaska City of Wainwright, Alaska
Mayor Doug Whiteman
City of Atqasuk, Alaska
______
NATIVE VILLAGE OF BARROW
INUPIAT TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT
March 4, 2022
Ms. Stephanie Rice, Project Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Anchorage, AK
Re: Willow Project SEIS Scoping Comments
Dear Ms. Rice,
I hope the day finds you well. The Native Village of Barrow (NVB)
submits these scoping comments on the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement NEPA process for the Willow Development proposed by
ConocoPhillips Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).
NVB is a federally recognized tribe, located in Utqiagvik, Alaska and
our tribal members live within the boundaries of the NPR-A.
We understand that BLM is preparing a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the Willow Development to address deficiencies
identified in the August 21, 2021 U.S. District Court of Alaska
decision. The Native Village of Barrow urges BLM to focus only on the
issues identified in the court decision and complete this supplemental
NEPA process as quickly as possible, so that the project can begin
construction during the next winter season. The project has already
undergone over 140 days of public comment, over 12 public hearings, and
an extensive review and an approval process by the North Slope Borough.
Our tribal members are also residents of the North Slope Borough
(NSB) which provides key services for its communities such as
education, public health, public utilities and infrastructure (clean
water, solid waste, roads, etc.) and safety (fire, police, search and
rescue). The costs of this infrastructure are high and the NSB's
ability to provide for basic needs comes from its taxing authority over
the oil industry on the North Slope. According to the BLM, Willow can
provide the NSB with approximately $1.2 bn in property tax revenue over
the 30-year life of the project, which will be essential to providing
for our tribal members and communities.
ConocoPhillips has engaged with North Slope residents for over 50
years and they are a responsible operator with a history of
collaborating with our communities and working with us to protect our
subsistence resources and lifestyle while contributing to our long-term
local economic sustainability. They have made changes to the project
and incorporated significant mitigations to protect the subsistence
resources and lifestyle of our people which we support.
We urge BLM to listen to the people of the North Slope and complete
a focused Supplemental EIS in a timely manner so that the project can
move forward.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Lang,
Executive Director
______
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE WILLOW PROJECT
LIUNA
(Laborers International Union of North America)
July 27, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Ms. Stephanie Rice, Project Lead--Alaska State Office
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
222 West Seventh Avenue--Mailstop 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Re: Opposing Extension of 45-Day Comment Period for Willow SEIS
Dear Secretary Haaland and Project Lead Rice:
The Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) is a
diverse union representing nearly half a million members, most of whom
work in the construction industry. LIUNA construction members work on a
vast array of both privately and publicly funded infrastructure
projects. Some examples include highways, roads, bridges, and tunnels;
energy generation and distribution systems, natural gas pipelines, wind
farms and solar panel fields, water and clean air works, environmental
remediation, and buildings of all types. All of this, however, is put
in jeopardy as our nation's critical infrastructure continues to be put
under constant restraint brought on by costly, burdensome, and often
unnecessary delays. I am writing to request that you do not extend the
current 45-day comment period for the Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) for Alaska's Willow project, and allow the
process to continue to move forward.
Our members move from to job to job, project to project, gaining
skills and experience that build construction careers and job
prosperity. There is not an area of the construction sector that our
members do not work in. This is especially true with respect to our
nation's vast energy infrastructure sector. In fact, energy
infrastructure, oil and natural gas in particular, is the largest
privately funded job creating sector for LIUNA construction workers.
The oil and natural gas industry has provided tens of thousands of
jobs, resulting in millions of work hours for our members. These are
quality union jobs, with family supporting wages and benefits. The same
is true for the Willow project, and the jobs the project will generate.
Construction of the Willow project includes ice roads, pipelines
and infield flowlines, gravel roads, pads and airstrips, and bridges.
Given the nature of the work, construction can only be done during
winter months. For that reason, the timing of Willow's construction is
critical to its completion.
It is important to note that the current 45-day comment period is
one of several comment periods that have transpired over the course of
the proposed project. In reality, stakeholders have had multiple
chances to submit comments, with a combined total of over 200 comment
days and 25 public meetings. Therefore, the request to extend the
current 45-day comment period by project opponents appears to merely be
a tactical maneuver to exhaust more private capital by causing needless
delays, as it would force the project to forgo the 2023 winter
construction season, with the ultimate goal of upending the project
altogether.
Permitting delays have become the norm within the construction
industry. This only results in hindered job growth and forgone economic
benefits. It is something that our members are all too familiar with,
as we bear the brunt of these calculated assaults. For a LIUNA member,
every day a project is delayed, is another day without a paycheck. It
is another day without healthcare and pension contributions. The Willow
project has had sufficient public engagement throughout its approval
process and accordingly, the 45-day comment period for the Willow SEIS
is adequate. We urge the Department to not extend the comment period
time.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Terry O'Sullivan,
General President
______
LIUNA
(Laborers International Union of North America)
August 26, 2022
Ms. Stephanie Rice, Project Lead (Alaska State Office)
Bureau of Land Management
222 West Seventh Avenue #13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Re: Willow Master Development Plan for the SEIS
Dear Ms. Rice:
On behalf of the 500,000 members of the Laborers' International
Union of North America (LIUNA), I submit the following comments in
response to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) for the Willow Master Development Plan (MDP). LIUNA applauds the
Bureau of Land Management for completing this SEIS, as it is an
important and necessary step for Willow MDP to move closer to the
project's construction phase and put LIUNA members to work. LIUNA
supports the Willow MDP because of what it means for our nation's
energy independence, local and state economies, and, most importantly,
what it means for the hard-working LIUNA members in Alaska.
LIUNA members work throughout North America, predominantly within
the construction industry. From highways and bridges, to tunnels and
skyscrapers, our members work every day, building America. One sector,
in particular, that has provided substantial workhours for our members
is our nation's energy industry. Specifically, our oil and natural gas
infrastructure. The oil and natural gas industry has employed thousands
of laborers, which has led to tens of millions of construction
workhours for LIUNA members.
Because construction jobs are inherently temporary by nature, LIUNA
members must move from job to job, banding together project after
project to create construction careers. As noted in the SEIS, Willow
MDP can employ over 1,000 construction workers yearly for the roughly 7
years it will take to construct. This will result in millions of work
hours for LIUNA members. These are good union jobs with family-
supporting wages and benefits.
The work required for the construction of Willow MDP is work that
our members are already trained to do. Infrastructure such as gravel
and ice roadways, bridges, several hundred miles of pipelines, and the
construction of airstrips and mine sites. Union apprenticeship training
programs provide our workers with the best, high-skilled training
within the construction industry. Combined with decades of experience,
our workforce is second to none. This helps ensure that Willow MDP will
be built correctly, on time, on budget, and with the least
environmental impact. Developing Willow MDP is essential for our
nation's national security and global competitiveness within the energy
industry. Producing domestic energy supports American jobs while
reducing the need to import from foreign countries.
ConocoPhillips completed its first Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in 2020. Alternative B was the desired decision. There was,
however, strong pushback due to environmental and habitat concerns.
That concern led a federal judge to ultimately void the project's
necessary permits in 2021, which triggered ConocoPhillips to conduct a
second EIS. The 2022 SEIS added a new alternative, Alternative E, which
addresses these issues. Alternative E downsizes the number of drill
pads from five to three. In addition, it reduces the total area needed
for surface infrastructure, thereby decreasing the amount of gravel,
freshwater, and wetlands necessary for the project. Alternative E also
relocates Bear Tooth drill site 5 (BT5), addressing potential
environmental impacts with respect to wildlife.
On behalf of our members in Alaska and across North America, I
thank the Bureau of Land Management for the opportunity to comment on
this important project and for their hard work on this SEIS. LIUNA
supports the Willow MDP and asks that BLM approve the Supplemental EIS
and Record of Decision (ROD). Time is imperative, not only for the
project itself, as its construction must be performed in the winter
months, but also for LIUNA members who are waiting and, hoping, to go
to work constructing Willow MDP.
With kind regards, I am
Fraternally yours,
Terry O'Sullivan,
General President
______
NABTU
(North America's Building Trades Unions)
August 3, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Ms. Stephanie Rice, Project Lead
Alaska State Office
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
222 West Seventh Avenue--Mailstop 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Dear Secretary Haaland and Project Lead Rice:
On behalf of North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU), its
fourteen affiliated national and international unions, and the over 3
million construction industry employees we represent, I write to
express our strong support for the Willow Project in Alaska and to
state our opposition to any extension to the comment period for the
recently released draft supplemental environmental impact statement
(DSEIS).
After five public comment periods, 25 public meetings and hundreds
of days for public comment, we request that the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) deny any request to further extend the comment period
for the DSEIS. By approving such an extension all that would be gained
is further delay in providing thousands of middleclass sustaining jobs
to our members, and communities in Alaska. These requests for delay are
not intended to yield substantially new information, as such has
already been offered in the years since this project's announcement.
They are instead intended to delay the project another winter
construction period or worse delay the project to where it is no longer
economically viable to proceed.
With the winter construction period rapidly approaching an
extension of the comment period in any manner means our members, the
working men and women of the construction industry, will be effectively
blocked from receiving the good wages, benefits, and career experience
offered by Willow for another calendar year.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter and your continued
thoughtful approach to the Willow Project which will directly benefit
our members in Alaska.
Sincerely,
Sean McGarvey,
President
______
International Union of Operating Engineers
Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations
May 4, 2020
Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office
c/o Racheal Jones, Project Manager
222 W 7th Avenue #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Support for Preferred Alternative B and Module Transfer Option 3,
Supplemental to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Willow Master Development Plan
The International Union of Operating Engineers respectfully submits
the following comments in support of the Preferred Alternative B and
Module Transfer Option 3 in the Supplemental to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Willow Master Development Plan (MDP).
The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) is one of
North America's leading construction unions. representing over 400,000
hardworking men and women in the United States and Canada. Most members
of the IUOE work in the construction sector, operating and maintaining
heavy equipment. Thousands of IUOE members possess specialized training
and years of practical experience building the nation's energy
infrastructure that powers our country, including such notable projects
as the Hoover Dam, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and countless power
plants and pipelines.
The proposed $5-$6 billion Willow Project, a stand-alone
development in the Bear Tooth Unit in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPR-A), reliably and responsibly delivers American energy and
job opportunities. The Project would provide significant employment
opportunities to members of the Operating Engineers and other skilled
trades and will bring critical revenue and jobs to Alaska and the
nation, helping us recover from the devastating economic impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Willow Project could create more than 2,000
construction jobs, plus 300 permanent jobs and generate more than $10
billion in federal, state and North Slope Borough revenue. Overall, the
project will exceed 7 million manhours, with construction expected to
last over five years.
BLM's current public comment period should not be paused or
extended because projects like Willow are critical to Alaska's economic
recovery. The State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources,
provided a letter to BLM on April 3, 2020 which says: ``This project
will bring critical revenue and jobs to the State and the nation during
an essential time.'' Alaska relies heavily on revenue from North Slope
oil production, which has, generally speaking, seen a steady decline in
production since its peak in 1988. The Project would help offset
declines in production from North Slope oil fields--BLM estimates peak
production of 130,000 barrels of oil per day and approximately yield
590 million barrels of oil over the Project's 30-year life.
Production from Willow would serve to help maintain the integrity
of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS), a critical link to
America's energy distribution. Given the vast resources believed to be
available in the NPR-A, future production could reverse the decline in
TAPS, allowing it to remain viable for decades. Prohibiting development
and production at Willow would set a dangerous precedent for future
development in NPR-A, severely compromising the long-term energy and
economic security of Alaska and the nation.
In response to stakeholder concerns and public comments on the
Willow Master Development Plan Draft IES (DEIS) released in August
2019, ConocoPhillips submitted an updated project proposal that
includes significant changes. The new proposal includes a third module
transfer option, construction of a freshwater reservoir, and up to
three boat ramps for subsistence use. The Module Option 3 would allow
for delivery of the heavier module first to Oliktok Dock, then using
existing gravel roads and land-based ice roads for transporting modules
to the site of the Willow Central Facility. This makes a temporary
gravel island no longer necessary.
The Willow MDP is consistent with the BLM's issued Integrated
Activity Plan (IAP) for the NPR-A and complies with all of its
obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. The proposed
Project minimizes environmental impacts and maintains high standards
for safety and emergency response.
ConocoPhillips employs rigorous standards to protect the
environment and subsistence resources. They have an excellent track
record and long history of operating responsibly and working with
stakeholders on the North Slope and in the Artic. Alternative B
reflects feedback that ConocoPhillips received from North Slope
stakeholders and demonstrates its willingness to work with communities
to minimize the impact of the project. Alternative B would also reduce
environmental impacts compared to other alternatives by using less
gravel fill, fresh water, and aircraft flights, while improving year-
round access for local residents.
Extensive mitigation and engineering design features are
incorporated into the Willow project. For instance, pipelines will be
elevated to at least 7 feet and separated from roads to allow for
caribou movements. Extended reach drilling technology has decreased the
size of drill site pads by 15-20 percent, dramatically reducing the
footprint in the North Slope. Spacing considerations in road and
pipeline construction facilitates caribou movement minimizing
disturbance to vulnerable wildlife. The DEIS references over 270
mitigation efforts and concludes, in section 3.19, that the cumulative
effects of the project will not have a significant impact on the
natural and human environment.
Since the construction of the Alpine facility in the North Slope,
subsistence harvests of all key resources in Nuiqsut have remained
strong. Caribou harvest have exceeded the average over the past few
years since the construction of the CDS drill site, Greater Mooses
Tooth 1 (GMT1), and Greater Mooses Tooth 2 (GMT2). Nuiqaut hunters are
increasingly using roads to hunt year-round. Harvest numbers are
increasing around infrastructure, which is a good indicator that
caribou are not avoiding the infrastructure area.
The Willow Project will not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it will maintain high standards for safety. This
project will also put many Operating Engineers to work, along with
others in the skilled trades. These jobs pay family-sustaining wages
and offer strong health and pension benefits. Furthermore, construction
of this project will provide much needed revenue to Alaska and the
North Slope community.
The IUOE strongly encourages the Bureau of Land Management to
approve the Preferred Alternative B and Module Transfer Option 3,
Supplemental to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Willow
Master Development Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James T. Callahan,
General President
______
ALASKA AFL-CIO
March 8, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
The Honorable Secretary Haaland:
First, congratulations on your historic nomination and thank you
for your willingness to serve and to grapple with this challenging
policy area that affects every American.
We know that the challenge of balancing the future and the past is
especially present in your department. There is no doubt that we must
confront our changing environment, but we also must be mindful to
transition in a way that is fair to workers, stakeholders and to the
environment. It is with the thoughts of an intentional transition that
we urge the Department of Interior to allow the Willow Project in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the currently
issued Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD).
We are dismayed about reports that the Department intends to review
current Environmental Impact Statements and RODs with the potential to
review the EIS ROD for the Willow Project, causing harmful delay for a
project that has incorporated the best mitigation practices available.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings; numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community. The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and
best practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope. During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process, there
were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These include
using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
This project has met all regulatory requirements in addition to
working with local residents to further reduce impacts, and many are
relying on the benefits it brings. The Department should not create
last minute unnecessary delays and obstacles, but should allow the
Willow Project to move forward as permitted and planned.
The economic benefits will be immense, and Alaska has never needed
these gains more than now. Alaska's economy was first hit with a crash
in oil prices followed by the ravages of the pandemic. By any measure,
Alaska workers and their families are hurting. Our state budget is
reaching an unprecedented crisis, and unemployment levels reflect the
ongoing impacts of the pandemic on our jobs and local businesses. These
challenging conditions are hitting Alaskans while they are already on
economically precarious footing, and the Willow Project has the
opportunity to both jumpstart our economy with jobs and be a model in
community and environmental stewardship. To highlight a few of the many
economic benefits of the Willow Project, the project would generate
over 2,000 construction jobs and hundreds of long-term jobs. Consistent
with the Administration's goals to increase middle-class union jobs,
75% of anticipated total North Slope installation work hours would be
union labor. Again, the Willow Project gives us the opportunity for the
Administration to work with unions to help set records with labor-
management apprenticeship hours, workplace safety, and stewardship. In
addition to an influx of much-needed jobs, according to BLM estimates,
the Willow Project will generate $2.3 billion in revenue for the State
of Alaska; $7.6 billion in federal royalties, income taxes and gravel
sales; and $1.2 billion in revenues for the North Slope Borough.
The need for fossil fuels will be with us for quite some time to
come. Alaska has proven itself to be a safe place to produce, has a
track record of middle-class wages that support a family, and this
responsible development has provided funding to our state government
and the services needed by our citizens. Willow is a project that can
help us bridge the gap and together we can build a just transition for
our planet and our workforce. I urge you to support the current Record
of Decision and allow the Willow project to move forward as planned and
previously approved.
Sincerely,
Joelle Hall,
Executive President
______
ALASKA PETROLEUM JOINT CRAFTS COUNCIL
February 6, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary Nominee
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Nominee Haaland:
As labor organizations representing workers in the oil and gas
industry in Alaska, representing 19,800 workers, we urge the Department
of Interior to allow the Willow Project in the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the currently issued
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). We are
disappointed about reports that the Department intends to review
current Environmental Impact Statements and RODs with the potential to
review the EIS ROD for the Willow Project, causing harmful delay for a
project that has incorporated the best mitigation practices available.
The Alaska Petroleum Joint Crafts Council (APJCC) represents the
Alaska workers who maintain critical energy infrastructure of national
importance from the North Slope to the Valdez Marine Terminal. Through
our exceptional training programs and adapting with improving
technology, we have achieved exceptional safety and environmental
records while skillfully executing significant projects under
challenging conditions. We appreciate President Biden's plan to ``Build
Back Better'' and incorporate clean energy into our country's energy
plan. At the same time, the transition must include family-supporting
jobs and maintain environmentally responsible projects like the Willow
project to ensure the economic health of Alaska and our communities.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings; numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community. The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and
best practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope. During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process, there
were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These include
using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
This project has met all regulatory requirements in addition to
working with local residents to further reduce impacts, and many are
relying on the benefits it brings. The Department should not create
last minute unnecessary delays and obstacles, but should allow the
Willow Project to move forward as permitted and planned. The economic
benefits will be immense, and Alaska has never needed these gains more
than now. Alaska's economy was first hit with a crash in oil prices
followed by the ravages of the pandemic. By any measure, Alaska workers
and their families are hurting. Our state budget is reaching an
unprecedented crisis, and unemployment levels reflect the ongoing
impacts of the pandemic on our jobs and local businesses. These
challenging conditions are hitting Alaskans while they are already on
economically precarious footing, and the Willow Project has the
opportunity to both jumpstart our economy with jobs and be a model in
community and environmental stewardship. To highlight a few of the many
economic benefits of the Willow Project, the project would generate
over 2,000 construction jobs and hundreds of long-term jobs. Consistent
with the Administration's goals to increase middle-class union jobs,
75% of anticipated total North Slope installation work hours would be
union labor. Again, the Willow Project gives us the opportunity for the
Administration to work with unions to help set records with labor-
management apprenticeship hours, workplace safety, and stewardship. In
addition to an influx of much-needed jobs, according to BLM estimates,
the Willow Project will generate $2.3 billion in revenue for the State
of Alaska; $7.6 billion in federal royalties, income taxes and gravel
sales; and $1.2 billion in revenues for the North Slope Borough.
By implementing the best mitigation measures and incorporating deep
engagement with stakeholders, the Willow Project can be a model to show
what we accomplish when we bring together workers, responsible industry
partners, environmental partners, and local communities. For the future
of Alaska's jobs and our economy, I urge you to support the current
Record of Decision and allow the Willow project to move forward as
planned and previously approved.
Sincerely,
A.J. ``Joey'' Merrick II,
President
______
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada
August 3, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
On behalf of the more than 359,000 hardworking members of the
United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA), I write in
strong support of the Willow Master Development Plan (Willow Project)
and urge you to swiftly complete the thorough public comment process.
The Willow Project has undergone extensive reviews and stands ready to
build.
It is long past time we create good-paying union jobs and invest in
the North Slope communities that will benefit directly from this
project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
As you know, the review process for the Willow Project has now
spanned three presidencies. This exhaustive review process has included
public comment periods, environmental reviews conducted by the federal
government, State of Alaska, and communities on the North Slope, and a
30-day scoping period. We are confident in the merits of the Willow
Project, especially after such an exhaustive review, and believe that
time is of the essence. Swift completion of this process will put our
members to work--the best trained and most highly skilled craftspeople
in the industry--building the critical infrastructure necessary to
meeting our ambitious energy goals. Simply put, the Willow Project will
help deliver reliable energy to consumers and provide billions of
dollars in economic investment in these communities.
Thank you once again for your commitment to a rigorous and timely
review process for not only the Willow Project, but all projects under
your purview. We look forward to continuing our work with you, with the
Department of the Interior, with the Biden Administration, and with our
industry partners to create family-sustaining jobs, deliver reliable
and affordable energy, and reach our shared climate goals.
Please do not hesitate to reach out to me or my staff with any
questions on this project. The entire United Association stands ready
to get to work as soon as this review process is complete.
Sincerely yours,
Mark McManus,
General President
______
THE ALLIANCE
The Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Linking Alaska's Resources to Alaska's People
July 19, 2022
Stephanie Rice
Willow SEIS Comments
222 W. 7th Avenue Stop #13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
Dear Ms. Rice,
On behalf of 500 Alliance members and their 35,000 Alaskan
employees, I am writing to ask that the BLM stick to the 45-day comment
period for the Willow SEIS.
This is not the Alliance's complete comment on the new SEIS,
however, given the importance of timing to get hundreds of Alliance
members to work on this project this year, we are submitting this
comment to encourage the BLM not to extend the comment period and let
people get back to work.
This project has undergone rigorous review for more than 5 years
and has provided multiple opportunities over an extensive period of
time for public comments and participation. The stakeholder engagement
on this project has been extensive, involving the communities who are
most directly impacted by the project to express their thoughts,
concerns, and ideas about the project.
Please keep the comment period to 45 days and allow this critical
economic engine to move forward.
Thank you for your consideration--
Rebecca Logan,
CEO
______
ALASKA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS
Laborers' International Union of North America
March 1, 2022
Stephanie Rice
BLM Project Manager
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Support for Willow Project & Efficient Completion of 2022 SEIS
Dear Ms. Rice,
The Alaska District Council of Laborers offers its strong support
for the Willow Project and encourages the BLM to complete the 2022
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in a timely manner
to enable construction to move forward during the 2022-2023 winter
season. Given the extensive incorporation of prior public comment and
scientific studies, the 2022 SEIS should only address the limited
issues identified by the Alaska District Court. The Alaska District
Council of Laborers represents 5,500 Alaskans working in construction,
the oil and gas industry, the public sector, tourism, and health care.
Laborers work in the oil and gas industry from the North Slope to the
Valdez Marine Terminal.
The Willow Project has gone through a rigorous environmental review
process, incorporating extensive public comment and collaboration with
multiple local, state, and federal agencies. The SEIS should only
address the discrete issues identified by the Alaska District Court
since other aspects of BLM's previous Willow Master Development Plan
EIS were upheld and therefore do not require additional analysis.
The Laborers urge BLM to complete the discrete 2022 SEIS and Record
of Decision in a timely manner to avoid additional delays in the many
public benefits of the Willow Project. Increasing domestic energy
production reinvigorates the economy and our local communities. Not
only will the Willow Project generate Alaska jobs, it will
substantially increase revenue for state and local governments. BLM
estimates show that the Willow Project is expected to generate $2.1
billion in state revenue from production, property, and income taxes as
well as $1.2 billion in property tax revenue for the North Slope
Borough. In addition, the project could increase the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System throughput by around 20%, thereby enhancing the
viability of this critical infrastructure.
Based on the significant economic benefits of the Willow Project
and the narrowly tailored directive of the Alaska District Court, we
urge BLM to move forward with an appropriately limited-scope 2022 SEIS.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
A.J. ``Joey'' Merrick II,
Business Manager, Secretary-Treasurer
______
SOUTHEAST STEVEDORING CORPORATION
April 12, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
Southeast Stevedoring Corporation has been involved in responsible
resource development in Alaska for over 69 years and we are writing to
express our serious concerns that the Department of Interior intends to
review the currently issued Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
approved Record of Decision (ROD) for the Willow Project in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). This would cause a very
costly delay in this project.
In 2013, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the Obama
administration, issued a Record of Decision for an updated Integrated
Activity Plan (IAP) for the NPR-A and the Willow development plan is
consistent with that approved IAP.
The EIS process that led up to the Willow ROD took over two years,
thousands of pages of scientific study and many thousand hours of
public time and comments were invested into this decision. Based on
this thorough public review, and in-depth environmental study, there is
no rationale for another review of the ROD analysis for the Willow
Project. The BLM efforts over the last 2+ years address the issues
raised though the public comment process, and the hundreds of
stipulations and best management practices the project will be required
to follow.
Additionally, U.S. District Court has denied in full preliminary
injunction motions filed by outside environmental advocacy
organizations in two separate cases challenging the Record of Decision.
The local people in the North Slope Borough provided a declaration with
overwhelming support to allow the Willow Project to proceed. The people
of Alaska need this project to continue.
Alaska's economy has been devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic and
this project will provide over 2,000 construction jobs and hundreds of
long-term jobs that are desperately needed. It will also bring in
significant revenue to federal, state, and local governments which is
critical in Alaska's efforts to recover from the pandemic. The BLM
estimates the project will generate over $1.2 billion in property tax
to the North Slope Borough, $2.3 billion in revenue to the State of
Alaska and $7.6 Billion to the Federal Government over the life of the
project. We all need these resources and this revenue.
While there is a strong focus and desire to move toward greener
energy sources that process will take time and the State of Alaska and
all of America still needs to develop our own natural resources to meet
the needs of our Country. The demand for these natural resources will
not decrease and for us to continually stop projects like this that can
be responsibly developed in our Country where we have strict
regulations is only exporting potential environmental concerns to other
countries who are not going to protect the environment as well as we
do. The Department of Interior should be a leading Agency to promote a
fully approved project like this and not delay it for further so we can
responsibly use our own natural resources.
We ask for your support for the current ROD and allow the Willow
project to proceed as planned and approved.
Sincerely,
Les Cronk,
Vice President
______
GENERAL STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC.
April 12, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
As an acknowledged industry leader in providing ship agency
services in North America for over 100 years and working closely with
the oil and gas industry, General Steamship Agencies, Inc. (GSA) urges
the Department of Interior to allow the Willow Project in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the currently issued
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). We are
disappointed about reports that the Department intends to review the
current EIS and ROD. This review of the Willow Project will cause
harmful delays for a project that has incorporated the best mitigation
practices available.
GSA and her waterfront partners provide skilled jobs developing,
transporting and exporting Alaska's oil and gas resources in an
environmentally responsible way. With the waterfront's excellent safety
and environmental record, we rely on such skillfully executed projects
to ensure the maximum reasonable protection for personnel and the
environment. The current political transition must include family-
supporting jobs and maintain environmentally responsible projects like
the Willow Project to ensure the economic health of Alaska and our
nation.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings, numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community.
The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and best
practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope . During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process,
there were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These
include using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow Project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
By implementing the best mitigation measures and incorporating deep
engagement with stakeholders, the Willow Project can be a model to show
what we can accomplish when we bring together workers, responsible
industry partners, environmental partners, and local communities. For
the future of Alaska's jobs and our economy, I urge you to support the
current Record of Decision and allow the Willow Project to move forward
as planned and previously approved.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Jones,
President
______
ALASKA PORT SERVICES, INC.
April 7, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
As a Maritime Services company who has worked closely the oil and
gas industry for over 50 years Alaska Port Services (APS) urges the
Department of Interior to allow the Willow Project in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the currently issued
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). We are
concerned about reports that the Department intends to review the
current EIS and ROD. This review of the Willow Project will cause
harmful delays for a project that has incorporated the best mitigation
practices available.
APS and her waterfront partners provide skilled jobs developing,
transporting, and exporting Alaska's oil and gas resources in an
environmentally responsible way. With the waterfront's excellent safety
and environmental record, we rely on such skillfully executed projects
to ensure the maximum reasonable protection for personnel and the
environment. The current political transition must include family-
supporting jobs and maintain environmentally responsible endeavors like
the Willow Project to ensure the economic health of Alaska and our
nation.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings, numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community.
The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and best
practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope. During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process, there
were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These include
using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
By implementing the best mitigation measures and incorporating deep
engagement with stakeholders, the Willow Project can be a model to show
what we can accomplish when we bring together workers, responsible
industry partners, environmental partners, and local communities. For
the future of Alaska's jobs and our economy, I urge you to support the
current Record of Decision and allow the Willow project to move forward
as planned and previously approved.
Very Respectfully,
Andrew J. Mew
______
ALASKA MARITIME AGENCIES
April 7, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
Founded in 1956, Alaska Maritime Agencies provides ship husbandry
services to both foreign and domestic tanker vessel activity here in
Alaska, which is heavily supported by the throughput of the oil via the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) from the Alaskan North Slope (ANS)
region. We believe the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Willow Project is more than
sufficient, and any further review would cause more unnecessary and
costly delays.
The tanker vessel activity resulting from the TAPS production not
only helps support our company but provides jobs for a variety of
vendors we utilize. These include marine pilots, tug services, line
handlers, tank surveyors, terminal workers, provisioning, and crewing
services just to name a few. The tanker vessel activity in Prince
William Sound (PWS), and subsequent destination of Cook Inlet (CI), has
an excellent safety and environmental record while providing the above
occupations with a stable source of income.
We strongly believe the Willow Project is essential to maintain a
healthy throughput of oil through our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The
project stands to add up to 100,000 barrels of oil per day, the
transport of which provides secure employment for companies like ours.
Also, the $2.3 billion to State of Alaska revenue from production,
property, and income taxes, plus $7.6 billion in federal royalty,
income tax, and gravel sales should be a huge boost to both the state
and federal coffers.
In addition to the strong revenue forecasts noted above, Conoco
Phillips has taken a very responsible and comprehensive approach to
involving a variety of stakeholders among the North Slope Villages when
developing both their spill mitigation and property enhancement plans.
These plans are crafted to respect and protect the local Indigenous
quality and style of life.
Combining these best mitigation practices along with the strong
economic benefits to both state and federal revenues, we highly suggest
the Willow Project continues as previously planned an approved.
Very Respectfully,
Luke Hasenbank,
President
______
WESTERN OCEAN SERVICES
April 7, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
As a Maritime Services company who has worked closely the oil and
gas industry for over 50 years Western Ocean Services (WOS) urges the
Department of Interior to allow the Willow Project in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the currently issued
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). We are
concerned about reports that the Department intends to review the
current EIS and ROD. This review of the Willow Project will cause
harmful delays for a project that has incorporated the best mitigation
practices available.
WOS and her waterfront partners provide skilled jobs developing,
transporting, and exporting Alaska's oil and gas resources in an
environmentally responsible way. With the waterfront's excellent safety
and environmental record, we rely on such skillfully executed projects
to ensure the maximum reasonable protection for personnel and the
environment. The current political transition must include family-
supporting jobs and maintain environmentally responsible endeavors like
the Willow Project to ensure the economic health of Alaska and our
nation.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings, numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community.
The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and best
practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope. During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process, there
were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These include
using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
By implementing the best mitigation measures and incorporating deep
engagement with stakeholders, the Willow Project can be a model to show
what we can accomplish when we bring together workers, responsible
industry partners, environmental partners, and local communities. For
the future of Alaska's jobs and our economy, I urge you to support the
current Record of Decision and allow the Willow project to move forward
as planned and previously approved.
Very Respectfully,
Andrew J. Mew
______
PORT ACCOUNTING AND LOGISTIC SERVICES
April 7, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
As a Maritime Services company who has worked closely the oil and
gas industry for over 50 years Port Accounting and Logistic Services
(PALS) urges the Department of Interior to allow the Willow Project in
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the
currently issued Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of
Decision (ROD). We are concerned about reports that the Department
intends to review the current EIS and ROD. This review of the Willow
Project will cause harmful delays for a project that has incorporated
the best mitigation practices available.
PALS and her waterfront partners provide skilled jobs related to
developing, transporting, and exporting Alaska's oil and gas resources
in an environmentally responsible way. With the waterfront's excellent
safety and environmental record, all parties have skillfully executed
projects to ensure the maximum reasonable protection for personnel and
the environment. The current political transition must include family-
supporting jobs and maintain environmentally responsible endeavors like
the Willow Project to ensure the economic health of Alaska and our
nation.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings, numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community.
The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and best
practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope. During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process, there
were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These include
using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
By implementing the best mitigation measures and incorporating deep
engagement with stakeholders, the Willow Project can be a model to show
what we can accomplish when we bring together workers, responsible
industry partners, environmental partners, and local communities. For
the future of Alaska's jobs and our economy, I urge you to support the
current Record of Decision and allow the Willow project to move forward
as planned and previously approved.
Very Respectfully,
Andrew J. Mew
______
NORTH STAR EQUIPMENT SERVICES
March 29, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Urgent Support for Willow Project in Alaska's NPR-A
Dear Secretary Haaland:
As a construction company in the oil and gas industry for over 70
years North Star Equipment Services (NSES) urges the Department of
Interior to allow the Willow Project in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPR-A) to proceed with the currently issued Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). We are disappointed
about reports that the Department intends to review the current EIS and
ROD. This review of the Willow Project will cause harmful delays for a
project that has incorporated the best mitigation practices available.
NSES provides many good paying jobs developing Alaska's oil and gas
resources in an environmentally responsible way. With our excellent
safety and environmental record, we have skillfully executed projects
to make sure our workers go home unaffected and the environment
unharmed. The current political transition must include family-
supporting jobs and maintain environmentally responsible projects like
the Willow project to ensure the economic health of Alaska and our
Country.
The Willow Project was planned based on the requirements of the
2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) under the Obama-Biden
Administration and Secretary Salazar with the highest standards for
environmental stewardship. The permitting and environmental review
process encompassed a period of well over 2 years. There were multiple
rounds of public comment and public meetings, numerous meetings between
the agencies and ConocoPhillips; over 100 public meetings involving
Alaska Native stakeholders; and multiple significant revisions to the
project to respond to suggestions and concerns from the Alaska Native
community.
The project is subject to over 270 mitigation measures and best
practices from the 2013 Integrated Activity Plan. In addition, the
Willow Project involves many proactive mitigations by ConocoPhillips.
Specifically, the Willow Project has focused on lowering emissions and
powering drilling rigs electrically once facilities are installed as
well as increasing energy efficiency over traditional installations on
the North Slope. During the North Slope Borough Rezoning Process, there
were additional mitigations incorporated in the project. These include
using foam insulation in roads to reduce road height and gravel
quantities. The airport footprint was reduced along with adding
restrictions for traffic and airport plans. There is also an extended
and expanded oil spill mitigation agreement. In addition to the in-
depth mitigation measures of the Willow project, hallmarks of the
project planning have been community involvement, stewardship, and
respect for subsistence and caribou.
By implementing the best mitigation measures and incorporating deep
engagement with stakeholders, the Willow Project can be a model to show
what we can accomplish when we bring together workers, responsible
industry partners, environmental partners, and local communities. For
the future of Alaska's jobs and our economy, I urge you to support the
current Record of Decision and allow the Willow project to move forward
as planned and previously approved.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bentz,
President
______
ALASKA DELEGATION
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE WILLOW PROJECT
UNITED STATES SENATE
Washington, DC 20510
March 8, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
We write to reiterate our strong support for the Willow Master
Development Plan (Willow), and to urge the Department of the Interior
to expeditiously complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) that leads to federal re-approval of this critical project.
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) review process for Willow has
consisted of a rigorous multi-year environmental analysis with
coordination across four federal agencies, the State of Alaska,
affected communities on the North Slope, Alaska Native Tribes, and the
general public. The prior Record of Decision and Final EIS also
facilitated robust public participation, including more than a dozen
in-person meetings and a total of nearly five months of public comment
periods.
The results of the process were clear: Willow is an environmentally
conscious project that abides by the strictest environmental
considerations in the world and has widespread support across Alaska
from Alaska Natives, building trades and organized labor, and the
public.
Today, Willow is supported by the Alaska Federation of Natives, the
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, and the North Slope Borough
(NSB), among many others. It has drawn such extensive support because
its operator, ConocoPhillips, has an excellent record of responsible
development in our state, and because it will be a key source of job
creation, government revenues, and energy security--all of which are
needed in these turbulent times.
Willow is estimated to support hundreds of new, permanent, and
well-paying jobs, many of which will be union jobs--a remarkable number
for any project in Alaska. Many of its jobs will be filled by those who
live in the North Slope Borough, while others will help Alaskans who
remain unemployed or underemployed in the wake of the pandemic. This is
particularly important for an industry that lost an estimated 30
percent of its jobs between 2019 and 2021 due to the pandemic.
By BLM's own estimates, Willow is projected to generate $2.1
billion for the State of Alaska and $1.2 billion for the NSB at oil
prices dramatically lower than what we face today. Higher prices will
generate more revenues for governments at all levels. The NSB will use
its share of those funds to support valuable community water and sewer
infrastructure; educational services, including Alaska's only tribal
college; and coastal and climate resiliency projects.
The war in Ukraine further underscores the urgency and need for
Willow. Oil prices were already high, but have risen even further since
the start of Russia's unprovoked atrocities. Countries around the
world, especially our own, must shift away from any dependence on
Russian energy. The Willow Project and its estimated 160,000 barrels of
daily supply can play a major role in making sure that happens.
Willow also meets the stated goals for the administration's
environmental justice initiatives. Approximately three-quarters of the
Borough's nearly 10,000 permanent residents are Inupiat, with over 98
percent of Inupiat households living a subsistence lifestyle. Willow
will be an example of responsible resource development that meets all
local and federal laws while providing benefits to underserved and
minority communities, while successfully balancing the needs of
regional subsistence users through strong mitigation measures.
We firmly believe BLM should complete a Supplemental EIS and Record
of Decision for Willow in time to allow for construction to begin
during the 2022-2023 winter season. This is possible within the legal
and administrative processes and would demonstrate seriousness about
rising energy prices and the need for greater energy security. There is
no better time and no better way to reassure our allies that the United
States will help stabilize markets, prevent shortages, and lower
prices.
Willow is a major project, located in our National Petroleum
Reserve, which was specifically designated for energy development. The
delays it has already faced are deeply unfortunate, and it now awaits
approval at a key moment. In light of inflation, rising gas prices, and
a dramatic shift in international geopolitics, we urge you to recognize
the immense benefits this project will bring and to act promptly to
approve it.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan,
United States Senator United States Senator
Don Young,
Congressman for All Alaska
______
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
House of Representatives
February 23, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
I am writing in response to the letter you recently received from
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva about the
Willow project in my state, Alaska. I firmly oppose his request that
you ``suspend'' or ``freeze'' the Willow permitting process. Willow
should get fair consideration on its merits under the National
Environmental Policy Act and other applicable law. I thank you for the
Administration's earlier support and defense of the Willow project
Record of Decision in court.
Willow is not a typical oil and gas development or the product of
any single federal administration. Willow has been designed under laws
uniquely applicable to Alaska, including the Naval Petroleum Reserve
Production Act of 1976, the Alaska National Interest Lands Act of 1980,
and the local land use and zoning requirements of the North Slope
Borough. At the heart of each of these processes is the goal of using
public lands to best serve the broad public interest. There are very
few projects that serve the public interest better than Willow.
The processes leading to approval of Willow began in 1999, during
the Clinton Administration, when the first Willow-area oil and gas
leases were sold by BLM. After years of careful exploration efforts,
the area is finally ready for development and production under a plan
that includes up to five drill sites connected to existing development
on the eastern edge of the massive National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
(NPR-A). The project design complies with the NPR-A Integrated Activity
Plan (IAP) developed by the Obama-Biden Administration in 2013. The
2013 IAP adopted the most environmentally protective alternative
considered at the time and had the support of many of the environmental
advocacy groups that are now opposing Willow. Although a new IAP was
adopted in 2020, BLM has recently announced a plan to revert to the
2013 IAP. The IAPs primarily address future leasing decisions and
reverting to the 2013 IAP would pose no obstacle to the Willow project.
Our great country has the most stringent environmental regulations
for oil and gas development anywhere, and nowhere is that truer than in
Alaska. Willow protects the land, wildlife and subsistence activities
that are unique to the region. Contrary to suggestions otherwise,
Willow complies with all applicable requirements of the Teshekpuk Lake
Special Area and the Colville River Special Area. The project has
design features such as elevated pipelines that are proven to provide
for caribou passage. The project has mitigation measures such as
parking areas and boat launches to ensure improved access for hunting,
fishing, and other subsistence activities. The project is subject to
conditions of approval imposed by the North Slope Borough local
government, which applies strict zoning criteria to ensure development
does not adversely impact subsistence. In January 2021, the Borough
Assembly--which includes representatives from all NPR-A communities and
their predominantly Inupiat residents--approved rezoning of lands
specifically to allow Willow construction to proceed.
As directed by existing federal law, 50 percent of the federal
royalties from Willow production will be available to fund a grant
program administered by the State of Alaska for the benefit of affected
communities. This program is already in effect, but the current funding
is small compared to what communities are rightfully expecting when
Willow comes online. Under BLM's estimate, this program will make $2.6
billion available over the 30-year life of the project to communities
impacts by development. These grant funds will be available to NPR-A
villages--historically, grants have been provided to Utqiagvik
(Barrow), Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, Anaktuvuk Pass, and Wainwright--to serve
public safety, public health, climate change resiliency, education, and
other important public uses.
Willow is a balanced development plan that was refined during an
extensive public process, complies with the law, and serves the broad
public interest. Willow should not be a mythical climate change symbol
as advocated by people far removed from Alaska who contend that moving
Willow forward is incompatible with addressing climate change
challenges. That contention is wrong. Outside groups attempting to
advance their agendas at the expense of the majority of North Slope
Alaska Native stakeholders who support the Willow project is offensive
to me and to them, as noted in the attached January 26, 2022, letter
from the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the North Slope
Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to Chairman
Grijalva.
Production from Willow would constitute a tiny fraction of national
and international greenhouse gas emissions. If Willow were to be
blocked, those emissions would occur anyway or even be exceeded from
production generated in places like Russia or elsewhere, who have worse
environmental records and standards, and whose outputs would still be
traded on the international market. The reality is that oil and gas
production is necessary, now and in the future, even as a transition to
lower-emission energy sources occurs over time. I am not aware of any
source of oil and gas production that the U.S. government should prefer
to Willow. The project makes use of existing infrastructure like the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline system; provides public revenue streams to
federal, state and local governments; will fund an existing mitigation
program that makes grants available to local communities; protects
subsistence resource and access for subsistence activities; and has
broad support in Alaska and the North Slope region. Thus, the project
fulfills core principles of environmental justice and should rise to
the top of any list of realistic energy development projects worthy of
approval.
I urge you to reject calls to stall approval of the Willow project.
I further urge you to direct staff in the Department of the Interior
and the BLM to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement
and new Record of Decision in a timely fashion to address the narrow
issues identified in the Federal District Court's ruling and bring the
benefits of the Willow project to life. A reminder that Willow has
extensive support from the North Slope Inupiat people:
The Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope
The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat
The North Slope Borough
The ANCSA Regional Association
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
The Alaska Native Village Corporation Association
The Cities of Utqiagvik, Wainwright and Atqasuk
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss Willow with you at any
time, and further to facilitate your meeting with the groups above to
hear from them directly.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Congressman for All Alaska
______
UNITED STATES SENATE
July 15, 2022
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Haaland:
We write to reiterate our strong support for the Willow Master
Development Plan (Willow) in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
(NPR-A), and to urge the U.S. Department of the Interior to complete,
without delay, a thorough public comment process for the July 2022
draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for this
critical project.
The SEIS published on July 15 is limited to one new project
alternative, which includes fewer drill sites and reduced surface
impacts. At the end of this 45-day comment period, the project will
have undergone 215 days of public comment with 25 public meetings, on
top of a 30-day scoping period this past February. This clearly
represents a comprehensive and rigorous public comment process.
We therefore firmly believe that a 45-day comment period will allow
all stakeholders and the general public more than enough time to review
the SEIS and provide meaningful comment. Timely completion of this
process is critical to the project's ability to undertake any level of
development activities during the rapidly-approaching 2022-2023 winter
season--the shortest construction season in the world due to Alaska's
world class environmental standards, which incorporate standards,
including ice roads and pads, which virtually eliminate any surface
disturbance. It would also demonstrate the urgency required to address
the seriousness of rising energy costs, the need for greater energy
security, and the Administration's stated goals for its environmental
justice initiatives.
As we previously noted in our March 8, 2022 letter, the review
process for Willow has already consisted of multi-year environmental
analyses by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) across multiple federal
agencies, the State of Alaska, and affected communities on the North
Slope. The results have shown that Willow abides by the strictest
environmental considerations in the world and has widespread support
across Alaska and committed support from the President of the United
States. The Alaska District Council of Laborers, for example, has
pointed out, ``not only will the Willow Project generate Alaska jobs,
it will substantially increase revenue for state and local
governments.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter from A.J. ``Joey'' Merrick II, Secretary-Treasurer,
Alaska District Council of Laborers, to Stephanie Rice, Project
Manager, Bureau of Land Management (Mar. 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Natives are also especially supportive of this project, as
it would contribute to their economic well-being and prosperity for
years to come. For example, Julie Kitka, President of the Alaska
Federation of Natives, wrote to you in a letter that Willow ``could
jumpstart our economy with thousands of jobs and be a model in
community and environmental stewardship for years to come.'' \2\ Hallie
Bissett and Kim Reitmeier, Executive Directors, respectively, of the
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association and ANCSA Regional
Association, have urged you not delay Willow ``given the exhaustive and
thorough review process it has already undergone, and the urgent need
for vetted, economic opportunities for safe development in Alaska.''
\3\ The cities of Utqiagvik, Wainwright, and Atqasuk, located on the
North Slope, have even passed resolutions in support of oil and gas
development projects, like Willow, within the NPR-A, and explicitly
asked you ``not to undercut us as a people and to honor the work'' they
have done with your agencies throughout the development of Willow.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter from Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of
Natives, to the Honorable Debra Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Interior (Feb. 23, 2022).
\3\ Letter from Hallie Bissett, Executive Director, Alaska Native
Village Corporation Association, and Kim Reitmeier, Executive Director,
ANCSA Regional Association, to the Honorable Debra Haaland, Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior (Feb. 4, 2021).
\4\ Letter from Fannie Suvlu, Mayor, City of Utqiagvik, Alaska,
John Hopson, Jr., Mayor, City of Wainwright, Alaska, and Doug Whiteman,
Mayor, City of Atqasuk, Alaska, to the Honorable Debra Haaland,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (Apr. 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, given BLM's previous evaluations of Willow, a 45-day public
comment period is a sufficient time frame for any interested party to
wholly evaluate the SEIS. Willow has already faced multiple delays, and
now again awaits approval at a pivotal moment. Given the current pace
of inflation, high gas prices, and international geopolitics, we urge
you to recognize the immense benefits this project will bring and act
promptly to approve it.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan,
United States Senator United States Senator
______
ALASKA STATE GOVERNMENT
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE WILLOW PROJECT
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Natural Resources
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
July 22, 2022
Tommy Beaudreau, Deputy Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Re: Willow Master Development Plan Public Comment Period
Dear Deputy Secretary Beaudreau:
I write to call your attention to the attached letter provided by
the Department of Natural Resources' Office of Project Management and
Permitting in their role as a cooperating agency on the development of
the Willow Master Development Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS). For all the reasons described in the letter, it is
critical that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proceed through the
process for the SEIS without granting requests for delays and
extensions based on fundamental misrepresentations about the project or
the scope and thoroughness of the reviews conducted to date.
We make this request on behalf of discrete public interests. First,
this project has been under review since 2016, with multiple public
comment periods (many already extended), dozens of public meetings, and
thousands and thousands of personnel hours devoted to the development,
review, and public discussion of the information now distilled in the
SEIS. The Alaskans that have participated in this process from the
beginning deserve resolution. Second, the Alaskans that are poised to
benefit from the project continue to suffer from delays. Workers on the
verge of starting the project were paused over the Christmas holiday in
2020 and enjoined from doing so in early 2021, and continue to await
resolution. The communities of the North Slope that would receive
property taxes and National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) impact
mitigation grants continue to have promised returns from development
pushed further into the future. Collectively, these communities
continue to express support for the prompt finalization of the SEIS,
and we actively join them in doing so. Third, it is increasingly
apparent how important domestic energy production is to the American
people. The international turmoil that has characterized this year to
date repeatedly shows how critical control of energy supplies is to
security at home and positive influence abroad.
We look forward to participating in the upcoming public meetings,
submitting substantive comments on the Draft SEIS within the 45-day
comment period, and actively continuing to work as a cooperating agency
as the robust public process continues.
Sincerely,
Akis Gialopsos,
Acting Commissioner
______
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Natural Resources
OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PERMITTING
July 22, 2022
Bureau of Land Management--Alaska State Office
222 West Seventh Avenue, Number 13
Anchorage, Alaska, 99513
Re: Willow Master Development Plan--draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement 45-day public comment period
Dear State Director Cohn and BLM Project/EIS lead Rice:
The State of Alaska, as a cooperating agency, is reviewing the
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Willow
Master Development Plan (Willow), which is currently out for a 45-day
public review. As we review the draft SEIS, we want to reiterate the
importance of the Willow project and the timely completion of the
federal environmental review process, which is of critical interest to
the State, the Nation, and North Slope stakeholders. The State of
Alaska strongly encourages BLM to confirm this 45-day public review
period is appropriate and proceed through the process without any
delay. Complete comments from the State of Alaska in response to the
SEIS are forthcoming under separate cover.
We firmly believe that a 45-day comment period will allow all
stakeholders ample time to review the updated information included in
this SEIS. The Willow project has gone through numerous reviews and
public notices focused on these same conceptual items. To date the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has conducted two scoping periods
(including one in March 2022, which was not required by federal law),
produced three draft EIS's (two supplemental drafts), one final EIS,
and one Record of Decision (ROD), which was the subject of judicial
review. Throughout the environmental review process BLM has afforded
the cooperating agencies and the public multiple opportunities to
review and comment on the proposed activities and analysis of potential
effects. Naturally, this process becomes more focused as it proceeds,
and the material in the SEIS now under review is the culmination of
years of process and nearly 200 days of public comment to date. It is
also important to note that this will not be the last opportunity to
for public submissions on this material--the Final SEIS will be
reviewed by cooperating agencies before it is published, and the public
will have yet another opportunity to submit views and input on the
project before BLM publishes the ROD.
Additionally, during the development of this most recent draft
SEIS, BLM has held numerous meetings and workshops for a variety of
stakeholders to receive input, walk stakeholders through the analysis,
and answer questions--to ensure that stakeholders would be well
prepared to submit comments on the material in the SEIS. BLM will also
conduct five public hearings over the next month to ensure that the
stakeholders have multiple opportunities to learn about the draft SEIS
analysis, ask questions, and submit comments. In addition to the
multiple reviews, additional scoping period, and other stakeholder
participation opportunities that have been provided for the SEIS--in
addition to the years of process leading to the SEIS--it is important
to note that there is limited new information to be considered and
reviewed within this draft SEIS. Only one new alternative was
identified, alternative E, which ultimately reduced the number of
proposed pads, wells, and overall footprint of the project. With such a
reduced footprint, information in this alternative has effectively
already been seen and reviewed by North Slope stakeholders and the
public.
Bringing projects like Willow online is one of the single most
effective actions BLM can take to support North Slope communities and
promote an autonomous and self-sustaining future that provides
``environmental justice'' benefits for local communities and reduces
``environmental justice'' impacts as assessed by BLM. In fact, not
allowing the Willow project to efficiently move forward would be the
biggest ``environmental justice'' impact of all. Delaying or stopping
the first major production in NPR-A would deprive NPR-A communities of
a long-promised partnership in the benefits of resource production. The
Willow development is the answer to mitigating a host of
``environmental justice'' impacts to NPR-A communities, but without the
production royalties from projects like Willow and future NPR-A
developments this program will not be able to generate revenue and fund
necessary mitigation projects as promised by the federal government.
Further delays on this project are not in the public interest and will
continue to have significant negative impacts on to the State of
Alaska, North Slope Borough, NPR-A communities, and other North Slope
stakeholders.
For these reasons, the State of Alaska affirms our support of BLM's
published 45-day review period for the SEIS and our commitment as a
cooperating agency to assist in the review process. BLM has provided
ample opportunities for review and input from all interested
stakeholders, including the State of Alaska, and any extension to the
comment period is not warranted.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bruno,
Project Coordinator
______
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
May 4, 2020
Willow DEIS Comments
BLM Alaska State Office
22 W 7th Ave. #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for ConocoPhillips' Willow oil and gas prospect. This project
is absolutely critical for Alaska from both an economic and social
perspective.
In recent decades, our oil and gas industry and support contractors
have developed increasingly sophisticated and effective means of
exploring for and producing oil and gas with minimal surface footprint.
As a result, we are able to produce more oil with less impact on local
wildlife such as caribou, eiders, and other species on the North Slope.
Oil and gas exploration and production can now increase local income
and job opportunities--with associated positive social impacts--without
significant negative impacts to subsistence activities.
Alaska depends on the oil and gas industry, not just for jobs, but
also for income. Our state depends on oil-related revenue to finance
schools, public safety, transportation, and more. Along with earnings
from the Permanent Fund, oil is the lifeblood of our state budget. For
this reason, the Willow prospect is extremely important for the state's
economic future.
In conclusion, we support the Willow prospect and look forward to
the positive impact this important development will have on local
communities and throughout Alaska.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rep. Kelly Merrick Senator Shelley Hughes
District 14 District F
Rep. Bart LeBon Senator Peter Micciche
District 1 District O
Rep. Mike Prax Senator Josh Revak
District 3 District M
Rep. Colleen Sullivan-
Leonard Rep. George Rauscher
District 7 District 9
Rep. Cathy Tilton Rep. Sara Rasmussen
District 12 District 22
Rep. Chuck Kopp Rep. Mel Gillis
District 24 District 25
Rep. Lance Pruitt
District 27
______
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
August 12, 2022
Steve Cohn, Director
U.S. Bureau of Land Management-Alaska
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Support for the Willow Project, the Draft SEIS, and Responsible Oil
and Gas Development
Dear Director Cohn:
We write today in support of the Willow Project, the draft
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), as well as the
responsible development of Alaska's oil and gas resources.
Alaska's oil and gas production is held to the highest
environmental standards, with extensive protections for local
communities and workforces. A barrel of oil produced in Alaska and
shipped through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is among the
most environmentally and socially responsible in the world.
With that said, the Willow Project is anticipated to generate
between $1.3 billion and $5.2 billion in unrestricted general fund
(UGF) revenue for Alaska, 2,000 constructions jobs, and 300 permanent
positions. These benefits, along with shared federal royalties and
property taxes for North Slope communities, make the development of
this project a priority for Alaskan lawmakers.
It is worth noting that revenue from oil and gas production
currently comprises 46 percent of Alaska's UGF revenue. Thus, healthy
throughput in TAPS equates to healthy state services and a higher
quality of life for our residents.
The Willow Project will also promote national energy independence
by increasing our supply of competitive, domestic oil. The project is
anticipated to produce up to 180,000 barrels per day and will keep a
key piece of U.S. infrastructure, TAPS, economically viable with a 20
percent increase in throughput.
The Willow NEPA environmental impact statement (EIS) process began
in 2018. It has included 5 public comment periods spanning 215 days and
25 public meetings, and the new draft SEIS has been extensively
modified with additional surface protections.
We respectfully request that you consider SEIS Alternative E as a
path forward for the project, and support the utilization of this
available, abundant, and responsibly developed resource for the benefit
of Alaskans and the Nation.
Sincerely,
Rep. Louise Stutes Rep. Chris Tuck
Speaker, Alaska House of
Representatives House Majority Leader
Rep. Kelly Merrick Rep. Matt Claman
Co-Chair, House Finance
Committee House Majority Whip
Rep. Dan Ortiz Rep. Sara Rasmussen
Vice-Chair, House Finance
Committee
Rep. Grier Hopkins Rep. Steve Thompson
Rep. Andy Josephson Rep. Bart LeBon
Rep. Calvin Schrage Rep. Mike Prax
______
ALASKA STATE SENATE
32nd Legislature
August 26, 2022
Steve Cohn, Director
Alaska State Office
Bureau of Land Management
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Support for the Willow Project, Alternative E & Timely Completion
of SEIS
Dear Director Cohn:
We urge the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to adopt the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Willow
Project to allow construction to move forward during the 2022-23 winter
season to prevent any additional delays. The Draft SEIS included a new
project alternative, Alternative E, which represents a good path
forward for this project so critical to Alaska.
The Willow Project has undergone an extensive environmental review
process that has lasted nearly five years. The Alaska District Court
required just three narrow issues in the previous final EIS to be
updated, which are addressed in this draft SEIS. Alternative E includes
fewer drill sites and reduced surface impacts and does not require a
prolonged review period. The 45-day comment period is more than
sufficient for public engagement on the Draft SEIS. In addition to
adopting a Final SEIS in a timely fashion, the BLM should refrain from
extending the 45-day comment period for the Draft SEIS.
Alaskans across the state stand to benefit from the Willow project.
The construction and installation phase of the project will require an
estimated nine million manhours of labor, equating to 2,000
construction jobs. Willow operations will create 300 permanent jobs.
Most of the construction and operations work will be done by Alaskans.
As the U.S. appears to be entering a recession, Willow presents a
unique opportunity to support Alaska's economy and workforce.
In addition to the job opportunities the project will generate for
Alaskans, there will be significant fiscal benefits. Based on the BLM
Draft SEIS analysis of two oil price scenarios, Willow could produce
between $1.3 and $5.2 billion in State of Alaska revenue from
production, property and income taxes over the life of the project.
This equates to additional State revenue that averages between $40 and
$170 million each year, depending on price. Members of the Senate have
long advocated that Alaska can achieve fiscal stability through safely
and responsibly producing the natural resources on our public lands.
The Willow project will also provide benefits to all Alaskans by
supporting public services like programs to help the disadvantaged
succeed, good schools and safe communities.
Alaskans are not the only beneficiaries of the Willow Project going
forward. Our nation's energy security is reaching a new low and
warrants strong consideration. The production of oil and gas in Alaska
is second to none when it comes to compliance with stringent safety and
environmental regulations. We support laws and regulations governing
production and transportation of all petroleum products and hold high
expectations for those operating within our great state. Alaskans take
great pride in the fact that our pristine state is being protected for
generations to come.
Given the substantial economic benefits to local communities, the
State of Alaska, and the nation, as well as the narrow directive from
the federal district court, we ask that BLM adopt the Willow Draft
SEIS, Alternative E, in a timely manner. We feel there has been
sufficient public engagement to move forward without further delay
based on the five public comment periods, the series of public
meetings, and the extensive scientific and agency reviews.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critical project
for Alaska's future.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Micciche Lyman Hoffman
Senate District O, Senate
President Senate District S
Tom Begich Roger Holland
Senate District J, Minority
Leader Senate District N
Click Bishop Shelley Hughes
Senate District C Senate District F, Majority
Leader
Mia Costello Scott Kawasaki
Senate District K Senate District A
Elvi Gray-Jackson Robert Myers
Senate District I Senate District B
Lora Reinbold Gary Stevens
Senate District G Senate District P
Josh Revak Natasha von Imhof
Senate District M Senate District L
Mike Shower Bill Wielechowski
Senate District E Senate District H
Bert Stedman David Wilson
Senate District R Senate District D
______
MEMBERS OF THE ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
August 20, 2022
Steve Cohn, Director
U.S. Bureau of Land Management-Alaska
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Support for the Willow Project Draft SEIS Alternative E
Dear Director Cohn:
We write today to provide comment on the Willow Project draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and convey our
support for Alternative E.
Alaskans rely upon oil and gas production, as well as other natural
resources, to sustain our lives. It is of the utmost importance that
our resources be developed with the highest environmental standards to
safeguard our great State for future generations. We are proud of the
fact that oil production on the North Slope and transportation through
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) 800-miles to the terminus in
Valdez is consistently accomplished in an environmentally sound manner.
We have every reason to believe that Alternative E will continue this
record of great stewardship.
During the many years of the Willow Project EIS process much public
scrutiny has concluded with SEIS Alternative E that modified the EIS to
include additional environmental protections. Several other
alternatives have been extensively considered and have been determined
to be cost prohibitive or have been determined by our courts to be
flawed. The process has been engaged in faithfully by all participants
and can be trusted to provide adequate environmental protections during
the development of the natural resources.
It is this development that we would like to impress upon you as
vitally important to us and the many Alaskans we represent. The Willow
Project is anticipated to generate billions of dollars in state
revenue, thousands of construction jobs, and hundreds of permanent
positions bringing much needed economic activity to many diverse
communities throughout Alaska. These economic benefits, along with
federal royalties and local property taxes for remote communities on
the North Slope, make the Willow Project a priority for Alaska
lawmakers.
The Willow Project will also promote national energy independence
by increasing our supply of domestic oil by approximately 180,000
barrels per day. With world-wide demand for oil projected to continue
to increase for decades, the Willow Project is critically important to
maintaining stable economic conditions as the world transitions to
other renewable energy sources.
It is with great hope for the future economic security of Alaskans
and the Nation, and the protection of our great State, that we
respectfully request that you approve the SEIS Alternative E and a path
forward for the Willow Project.
Sincerely,
Rep. Rauscher Rep. Carpenter
District 9 District 29
Rep. Tilton Rep. Gillham
District 12 District 30
Rep. McKay Rep. Kaufman
District 24 District 28
Rep. McCabe Rep. Shaw
District 8 District 26
Rep. Cronk Rep. LeBon
District 6 District 1
Rep. Johnson Rep. Thompson
District 11 District 2
Rep. McCarty Rep. Rasmussen
District 13 District 22
Rep. Vance Rep. Nelson
District 31 District 15
______
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE WILLOW PROJECT
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
July 27, 2022
Steve Cohn, State Director
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Comments on the Willow Master Development Plan (MDP) Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS); NEPA #DOI-
BLM-AK-0000-2018-0004-EIS
Dear State Director Cohn:
The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) submits the
following comments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) above-
referenced document. RDC is a statewide trade association comprised of
individuals and companies from Alaska's fishing, tourism forestry,
mining, and oil and gas industries. RDC's membership includes Alaska
Native corporations, private companies, nonprofit entities, local
communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. For 47 years,
RDC has advocated for a strong, diversified private sector in Alaska
and to expand the state's economic base through the responsible
development of our natural resources. The Willow Project is such an
example.
RDC encourages the BLM to move forward in finalizing the DSEIS
without any further delay or extensions. After many years of rigorous
environmental review and analysis, including complying with additional
court-ordered review, the DSEIS presents a reasonable alternative that
responds to the court's concerns and was developed in coordination with
cooperating agencies and stakeholders. The current comment period is
adequate time to review limited, new information.
Extensive Analysis and Public Input; Court Concerns are Addressed
Since 2017, RDC has submitted several comments letters and
testified in support of the Willow Project. RDC continues to support
the project in this current phase of review. The extensive effort and
scientific analysis BLM and other cooperating agencies provided
culminated in a FEIS and ROD in 2020 approving the Project. BLM's
extensive analysis was in cooperation with multiple state, federal, and
local cooperating agencies, with extensive stakeholder engagement
public hearings, scoping meetings, and consultations. This includes now
approximately 215 days of days of public comment (including this
current comment period), two public scoping periods, and thirteen in
person public meetings held in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Nuiqsut,
Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Anaktuvuk Pass. (It is important to emphasize
this does not count the extensive and numerous efforts the BLM staff
engaged in to find new ways to continue to engage the public and
progress permitting when the pandemic hit in 2020, including holding
virtual meetings to allow public engagement virtually by phone, virtual
conferencing, and local radio broadcasts. By some counts, these
additional meetings bring the number of public meetings closer to 25.)
RDC applauds the extensive efforts of BLM to engage in a thorough,
multi-year analysis of the project based in science and supported by
the research; however, it is time to bring that process to a close and
let the project proceed to development.
This current phase of review, the DSEIS, is the result of a remand
decision in August 2021, by the U.S. District Court for Alaska. That
remand order, which was not contested by the Project Proponent,
identified specific categories of deficiencies that required additional
analysis. In response, this past spring, BLM opened a public scoping
period to assess the scope of the additional court-ordered review. RDC
submitted comments encouraging BLM to focus solely on the narrow issues
identified by the court remand decision. Importantly, multiple other
aspects of the 2020 Willow MDP FEIS were unaffected by the court's
remand decision. The unaffected parts of the previous environmental
review for the Willow Project do not need to be revisited.
Upon initial review of the DSEIS, RDC applauds BLM for maintaining
a narrow focus to the court issues and commonsense approach to this
years-long, extensive environmental review of the Willow MDP. The DSEIS
makes it easy to identify the new analysis and the new ``Alternative E:
Three-Pad Alternative (Fourth Pad Deferred)'' (``Alternative E'')
developed in direct response to the court order. The current comment
period is more than adequate to review the limited new information and
comment. Further delay will only add to additional, unnecessary costs
and cause potential loss of another valuable construction season.
Alternative E reduces the scope, and consequently, the footprint
and impact of the project. In several ways, this addresses many
concerns most often expressed by Project opponents. First, it reduces
and realigns the number of drilling sites (from 5 down to 4, but only 3
would be approved as currently proposed in the DSEIS). Alternative E
further reduces the amount of roads, both gravel and ice, needed for
the Project, which also reduces freshwater usage; reduces the amount of
infield pipelines; realigns the Project to avoid yellow-billed loon
buffer zones; and reduces the length of airstrips needed. Most of these
reductions take place in or near the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area
(TLSA); again, an area of most concern to opponents. Additionally, in
its updated analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as part of the
Climate and Climate Change analysis and in response to the court's
remand order, the DSEIS concludes Alternative E has the lowest overall
GHG impacts than any other previously considered action alternative
based on current U.S. standards for modeling GHG impacts. The DSEIS
adequately addresses both the direct and indirect as well as cumulative
GHG impacts of the Project. Further review concludes cumulative impacts
on coastal subsistence communities is expected to be low. Overall,
proposed Alternative E reduces the footprint and surface infrastructure
of the project within TLSA presenting a reasonable path forward
supported by BLM's environmental analysis. The DSEIS directly addresses
the court's concerns.
The Willow Project Brings Economic and Energy Independence for All
RDC understands that Alternative E was developed by BLM together
with cooperating agencies and stakeholders as a compromise to address
the court's concerns. Key stakeholders for this project include Alaska
Native individuals, communities, and entities of Alaska's North Slope
region. The project falls within the North Slope Borough (NSB), whose
territory includes the NPR-A. Key villages within the NSB include
Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik, Point Lay and Wainwright. Other key Alaska Native
entities include the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), the
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), the Alaska Native regional
corporation for the North Slope established pursuant to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). Representing more than
10,000 Alaskans and Alaska Native individuals, these stakeholders
overwhelmingly support the Willow Project. RDC encourages BLM to give
all due respect to the cultural and economic arguments, including
subsistence concerns, set forth in a joint letter by ICAS, ASRC, and
the NSB dated July 21, 2022, and that was recently submitted to the
public record for this Project.
The Willow Project is in the National Petroleum Reserve-A (NPR-A),
a 23-million acre reserve specifically set aside by Congress in 1923
for its petroleum value to ensure American energy independence. The
NPR-A is larger than the state of Maine and the Willow Project
represents just a small fraction of that area. With Alternative E, that
fraction becomes even smaller. The Willow Project will provide key
economic investment at all levels of government, as well as the private
sector. The Willow Project is estimated to contain as much as 600
million barrels of oil and peak daily production could exceed 180,000
barrels per day over a thirty-year period. This production would
substantially boost throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
(TAPS), running at times one-fourth of its capacity, and will extend
the life of TAPS for decades to come. It is estimated the Project will
provide nearly $9 billion in economic benefits through federal, state,
and local government royalties and revenues from production, as well as
property and income taxes. More than 2,000 construction jobs will be
created, including 300 long-term jobs in Alaska. Clearly, Willow
production will help fulfill the primary purpose of the NPR-A, which is
to develop American energy resources. It is paramount that BLM provide
access to prospects in this region with the highest potential as
Congress intended.
In closing, after several years of rigorous environmental review,
extensive regulatory assessment, court review, and supplemental
analysis, it is time to permit this project. The science-backed data
supports the conclusion that the Willow Project is an environmentally
and socially responsible resource development project. With its smaller
footprint, this Project will also play a critical role in the clean
energy transition. RDC encourages BLM adopt Alternative E and permit
the Project without further delay.
Sincerely,
Leila Kimbrell,
Executive Director
______
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION (AOGA)
July 21, 2022
Ms. Stephanie Rice, BLM Project Manager
Bureau of Land Management
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
To Whom It May Concern:
The Alaska Oil & Gas Association (AOGA) is a professional trade
association whose fourteen member companies account for most of the oil
and gas exploration, development, production, transportation, and
refining activities in Alaska. As Alaskans, we advocate for the long-
term viability of the industry in our state.
On July 8, 2022, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Willow
project with comments due August 29, 2022. Normally, AOGA's comments
are submitted at the end of the comment period, but this time, it is
important for our voice to be heard earlier in the process.
AOGA has been involved in every step of the regulatory process for
this project from the very beginning. After the Willow exploration
wells were drilled in 2016, and the discovery was announced in 2017,
ConocoPhillips requested the BLM start the environmental review and
permitting of this project in May 2018, over 50 months ago. The scoping
process for this project started in August 2018 and BLM published the
first draft EIS in 2019. After revising the project following
stakeholder input, BLM issued a supplement to that draft EIS in 2020.
Following the final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) in 2020, BLM's
decision was challenged in court by environmental organizations, with
most of them based outside the state of Alaska. The court vacated the
ROD in August 2021 based on a limited number of issues. As BLM
conducted another environmental analysis to develop this current SEIS,
they opened an informal scoping period earlier this year, which opened
the fourth round of public comment for this project. This scoping
process was not required, but it added another opportunity for the
public to express opinions about Willow, and the response from Alaskan
communities, organizations, and governments were overwhelmingly very
supportive. It is not common to see such diverse support for an Alaskan
project, from residents of the North Star Borough, and the Inupiat
Community of the Arctic Slope, to organizations like the Alaska
Federation of Natives, Alaska Petroleum Joint Crafts Council (labor
unions), Alaska Chamber of Commerce (business), and Associated General
Contractors.
To address the concerns raised by the court, BLM developed their
own Alternative (Alternative E) which further minimize impacts while
allowing needed development to proceed. AOGA supports this alternative
as it is a creative solution that reduces the surface impact in the
area, especially in the Teshekpuk Lake region.
World dynamics have intensified the need for more energy
production, especially from America. The additional jobs would also be
a boost to Alaska's economy as oil and gas jobs have yet to recover to
pre-pandemic levels, and the project will provide significant revenues
to the local, state, and federal government.
Before the SEIS was even issued two weeks ago, there were calls to
extend the current public comment period. The public had not even seen
the report, and some were clamoring for additional time. This is now
the fifth public comment period for a project that drilled its first
exploration well over six years ago.
Willow is likely one of the most studied and analyzed projects in
the country, with extensive opportunity for public engagement. This
draft SEIS was rigorously and punctiliously developed by BLM after the
court remanded it to them almost 12 months ago. If an extension was
granted, it would delay the agency's ability to make a final decision
until late in 2022 or early 2023, which means Alaskans would lose out
on the jobs and revenues created by a construction season in 2023.
AOGA strongly encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E and issue a
final EIS and ROD in a timely manner and urges the BLM to not extend
the current comment period.
Sincerely,
Kara Moriarty,
President/CEO
______
ALASKA OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION ALASKA CHAMBER
ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION ALASKA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
ALASKA POLICY FORUM
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF ALASKA
COUNCIL OF ALASKA PRODUCERS KEEP ALASKA COMPETITIVE
THE ALLIANCE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
February 2, 2021
Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary Nominee
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Nominee Haaland:
As the leading business organizations in the state of Alaska
representing over 1,500 companies with approximately 100,000 employees,
we are concerned about reports following President Biden's Executive
Orders in his first week of office that the Department of Interior
intends to review currently issued Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Record of Decisions (ROD) across the country, including the potential
to review the ROD for the Willow Project in the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).
The Willow project was designed to meet requirements of the 2013
NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP), issued by the Obama-Biden
Administration, and signed by Secretary Salazar, with stringent
requirements for environmental protection. In fact, there are currently
roughly 270 mitigation measures and best practices already in place for
NPR-A development through the 2013 IAP, which the Willow Project was
designed to comply with.
After the Willow Project discovery, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) was requested to begin the EIS process in May 2018, and the
Notice of Intent from DOI was issued in August 2018. The entire EIS
process took over two years to complete, with the Record of Decision
issued on October 26, 2020. Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon
Gleason denied in full preliminary injunction motions filed by
environmental advocacy organizations in two separate cases challenging
the Record of Decision. It is interesting to note that Mayor Harry
Brower of the North Slope Borough provided a declaration in support to
allow the Willow Project to proceed.
The current EIS ROD for Willow was not an expedited process. Over
the course of 26 months, more than 100 public meetings with North Slope
stakeholders were held, over 140 days of public comment, with in-
person, virtual public meetings, and local radio broadcasts. The final
EIS document is over 2,600 pages of detailed analysis.
Based on this thorough public review, and in-depth environmental
review, we do not understand the rationale for this potential review of
the ROD analysis for Willow. The BLM efforts over the last 2+ years
address the issues raised though the public comment process, and the
hundreds of stipulations and best management practices the project will
be required to follow.
It is our respectful request that the Department of Interior not
delay the Willow Project, and not require any additional analysis given
the extensive and exhaustive nature of the process used to perform the
approved Willow EIS.
The Willow project is very important to the state of Alaska.
Alaska's economy has been devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic and there
are very few projects, if any in our state, that have the potential to
bring over 2,000 construction jobs, with roughly 75% of the
installation manhours union labor, and hundreds of long-term jobs. Oil
and gas drives over 20% of the Alaskan economy. Many of the companies
and their employees represented by the organizations signing this
letter depend on the direct, indirect, and induced jobs the oil
industry provides, and will suffer economic harm if the Willow project
is deferred or canceled. The project is also slated to bring in
significant revenue to federal, state, and local governments which is
critical in Alaska's efforts to recover from the pandemic.
Importantly, the Willow Project will also benefit the entire
indigenous population of the North Slope region. The BLM estimates the
project will generate over $1.2 billion in property tax to the North
Slope Borough alone over the life of the project, and $2.6 billion for
the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grant Program, under which North Slope
communities have the highest priority for use of the funds. These
revenues benefit all the communities in the region, supporting schools,
emergency response, health clinics, drinking water, wastewater, roads,
utilities, and solid waste.
We urge your support for the current ROD and allow the Willow
project to proceed as planned and approved.
Respectfully,
Kara Moriarty, President/
CEO, Kati Capozzi, President & CEO,
Alaska Oil & Gas
Association Alaska Chamber
Deantha Skibinski, Exec.
Director, Joe Michel, Executive Director,
Alaska Miners Association Alaska Trucking Association
Bethany Marcum, Executive
Director, Alicia Siira, Executive Director,
Alaska Policy Forum Associated General Contractors of
Alaska
Karen Matthias, Executive
Director, Elizabeth Stevens,
Council of Alaska Producers Keep Alaska Competitive
Rebecca Logan, President
and CEO, Marleanna Hall, Executive
Director,
Alaska Support Industry
Alliance Resource Development Council for
Alaska, Inc.
______
GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
August 29, 2022
Steve Cohn, State Director
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Bureau of Land Management; Willow Master Development Plan (MDP)
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS); NEPA
#DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2018-0004-EIS (July 8, 2022)
Dear State Director Cohn:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (``Chamber'') appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the Willow Master Development Plan (MDP)
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) proposed on
July 8, 2022.
The Chamber represents members in every sector of the economy who
all depend on affordable and reliable energy sources. ConocoPhillips'
proposed Willow project, and development of the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) generally, represent a crucial addition to U.S.
energy security, providing significant additional domestic energy under
some of the strictest environmental standards in the world. As such,
the Chamber supports the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed
Supplemental EIS for the Willow project and encourages it to adopt
Alternative E without delay.
Energy Security
Development of the Willow project represents a critical opportunity
to increase U.S. energy security by adding an additional source of
domestic oil production. BLM estimates, Willow will produce an
estimated 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak. Moreover,
throughput for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) has been
declining for over a decade, increasing the risk that it will fall
below the required amount necessary to continue operating and supplying
oil to the rest of the U.S., especially West Coast refineries. The
estimated production rate from Willow will increase the current TAPS
throughput by 20% and ensure its long-term viability.
Additionally, Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine
has diminished the energy security of the U.S. and our allies. Europe
and Asia are preparing for a winter heating season with far less
Russian energy imports, driving up prices to unprecedented levels and
threatening physical supplies of energy commodities. This situation
highlights the importance of increased and reliable production of oil
and natural gas from the United States as a geopolitical foil to
Russia's use of energy exports in an attempt to undermine global
support for Ukraine and its defense. As one of the largest exporters of
petroleum in the world, the United States' ability to facilitate global
diversification from Russian energy will be enhanced by the Willow
project.
ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
BLM's DSEIS estimates development of the Willow project could
generate between $8 and $17 billion in new revenue for the federal
government, the State of Alaska, and communities in and adjacent to
NPR-A. BLM further estimates Willow will provide between $1.3 and $5.2
billion in State of Alaska revenue from production, property, and
income taxes and over $1.2 billion in North Slope Borough (NSB) revenue
from property taxes. Additionally, Willow is expected to create as many
as 2,000 jobs during construction.
Global oil markets are expected to remain tight for the foreseeable
future, and global oil demand is projected to remain strong in the long
term. Oil supply from Willow will provide some of the most
technologically advanced and environmentally and socially responsible
barrels produced in the world, providing a net reduction in greenhouse
gasses as it displaces overseas imports with higher greenhouse gas
intensity. The International Energy Administration estimates that the
methane intensity of oil and gas production in Russia is 30 percent
higher than in the United States. Emissions in Iran are 85% higher for
each unit of energy produced, and Venezuela is off the charts at 652%
higher.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Greater U.S. Energy Production Is Needed to Reduce Reliance on
Authoritarian Regimes, Global Energy Institute, Dan Byers, April 5,
2022, https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/greater-us-energy-
production-needed-reduce-reliance-authoritarian-regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMELINESS
The Willow project has undergone nearly five years of rigorous
regulatory review and environmental analysis, including extensive
scientific analysis. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement provides a new Alternative (Alt E) developed by BLM and
cooperating agencies in consultation with stakeholders in response to
the decision in August 2021, by the U.S. District Court for Alaska,
remanding BLM's previous DEIS to BLM. Alt E represents a good path
forward for the Willow project and significantly reduces surface
impacts.
The Chamber supports BLM's effort to narrowly focus the DSEIS on
the issues raised by the remand decision. The DSEIS's development of a
new ``Alternative E: Three-Pad Alternative (Fourth Pad Deferred)''
(``Alternative E'') directly and adequately addresses the court order.
The draft supplemental EIS is extensive and thorough at over 400 pages
long.\2\ There has been extensive public involvement, including more
than five public comment periods, 215 days of public comment, a public
scoping period, and 25 public meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Willow Master Development Plan, Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, July 2022,
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/109410/200258032/20063228/
250069410/Vol%201_Willow%20Draft%20Supplemental%20EIS_July%20 2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Chamber encourages BLM to finalize the Willow
Project without further delay to avoid additional increases to
development costs and potentially cause the project to miss loss of
another construction season.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Christopher Guith,
Senior Vice President
______
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
August 29, 2022
Ms. Stephanie Rice
BLM Project Manager
Bureau of Land Management
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Willow Master Development Plan (MDP) Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS); NEPA No. DOI-BLM-AK-
0000-2018-0004-EIS
As the nation's largest manufacturing association, the National
Association of Manufacturers represents nearly 14,000 small, medium and
large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states.
Manufacturers in America are committed to the communities in which they
live and serve, and are dedicated to protecting the health, safety and
vibrancy of those communities. Through constant innovation, investment
and dedication, manufacturers in the U.S. have become leaders in
environmental stewardship and sustainability, while continuing to be
the engine that drives the nation's economic growth and prosperity.
Today's domestic manufacturing sector is a clean and efficient
operation that is technology driven and dedicated to the planet and its
people.
Manufacturers and their families are facing record-high energy
prices, but it could be far worse if not for domestic energy
production. We are working hard to be part of the solution and have
urged President Biden and his Administration to take actions to
increase domestic energy production to ease some of the strains on the
economy and improve the competitiveness of manufacturing in America.
Yet we continue to see opportunities missed as projects are canceled
and delayed because the Administration fails to follow through on
supporting domestic energy production.
Access to reliable, affordable energy is essential for
manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. The NAM supports a
diverse approach to powering manufacturing operations, including the
responsible development and use of all energy sources, including fossil
fuels. There are abundant and reliable oil and natural gas resources in
America, and global demand for these resources has continued to
increase. For manufacturers, U.S. domestic oil and natural gas supply
is a critical component of our energy security. In today's global
economy, U.S. manufacturers must be assured of an adequate supply of
competitively priced and reliable oil and natural gas industrial and
commercial use.
For these reasons the NAM supports ConocoPhillips' Willow project
in Alaska. The project will produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil per
day and create 2,000 jobs and an additional 300 operating jobs. The
U.S. must continue to bolster domestic energy production and the Willow
project presents an environmentally-sound and economically-smart
opportunity to do just that. Manufacturers will benefit from domestic
energy projects like the Willow project.
This summer BLM issued a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Willow project in Alaska that builds upon the initial
EIS. At the end of this comment period, the Willow project will have
undergone 215 days of public comment and 25 public meetings. The NAM
urges BLM move quickly to approve this project so that development can
begin ahead of the 2022-2023 winter season. Given the extensive
environmental reviews the Willow project has already received, the NAM
urges BLM to expeditiously evaluate the SEIS within the current comment
period and approve this project to support domestic energy security.
The NAM appreciates this opportunity to voice support for the
Willow project and implores BLM to promptly approve it. This is a
critical opportunity to increase domestic energy production, enhance
U.S. energy security and drive down energy prices.
Sincerely,
Rachel Jones,
Vice President
Energy & Resources Policy
______
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
August 29, 2022
Ms. Stephanie Rice, Project Manager
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office
222 W. 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, AK 99513
Re: Willow Master Development Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (``SEIS''), Comments due August 29, 2022
Dear Ms. Rice:
We are pleased to participate in the 45-day public comment period
for the Willow Master Development Plan (``Willow Project'') Draft SEIS,
and we submit written comments for your consideration. We appreciate
the Bureau of Land Management's (``BLM'') commitment to meaningful
public engagement including extensive opportunities for the public to
provide input on the critical energy infrastructure development
proposed in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (``NPR-A'').
The American Petroleum Institute (``API'') represents all segments
of America's oil and natural gas industry which supports more than 11
million US jobs and is backed by a growing grassroots movement of
millions of Americans. Our approximately 600 members produce, process,
and distribute the majority of the nation's energy, and participate in
API Energy Excellence', which is accelerating environmental
and safety progress by fostering new technologies and transparent
reporting. API was formed in 1919 as a standards-setting organization
and has developed more than 800 standards to enhance operational and
environmental safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
With energy costs high for American consumers and European allies
looking to the US for access to an affordable and stable energy supply,
we urge the BLM to provide regulatory certainty with timely approvals
in federal environmental reviews for energy infrastructure projects.
Clear, robust, and timely completion of federal reviews for energy
infrastructure is vital for ensuring that American producers meet
rising demand at home and abroad and continue to provide reliable
energy.
Allowing safe and responsible energy infrastructure projects such
as the fully-vetted Willow Project to proceed without any further
delay, is critical to securing much needed Alaskan energy development
and for ensuring overall US energy security.
We provide the following overall comments for your consideration:
Energy Infrastructure Projects are essential for domestic
energy security and for meeting global energy demands.
Overall, responsible, safe, and efficient development and
maintenance of vital energy infrastructure projects such as
the Willow Project will serve the national interest by
providing secure domestic energy supplies for the nation
and our wider interests, strengthen our national security,
all while being the engines for increased revenues and job
creation for US and local Alaskan economies.
Energy Infrastructure Projects contribute to more jobs and
increased tax revenues. Energy Infrastructure projects
provide enormous benefits to the local economies and here,
the Willow Project is expected to create as many as 2,000
jobs during construction and an estimated 300 permanent
jobs.\1\ Another key benefit is that development projects
such as this result in significant tax and royalty revenues
for local, state, and federal governments providing much
needed economic stimulus.\2\ In fact, any delayed timing of
a final decision would not serve any public benefit and
could hamper access to vital economic opportunities given
Alaska's short and limited seasons for construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project description available at: https://
static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/22copa013-willow-fact-sheet-
r7-19-12.pdf.
\2\ See for e.g. Draft SEIS, Table 3.15.5 (Summary of State,
Federal, and Borough Revenues from the Project).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timely completion and approvals of fully-vetted federal
reviews for energy infrastructure projects is crucial for
regulatory certainty. Energy projects are subject to
rigorous federal environmental reviews, and in this case,
the Willow Project has undergone comprehensive review
process lasting more than four years, with extensive
opportunities for public comment.
The BLM scoping process for Willow Project began in 2018
followed by the issuance of a draft EIS the following year.
With public input and a SEIS issued, the BLM issued a Final
SEIS and a ROD. Following litigation and a court decision
that found fault with two discrete areas of the SEIS, BLM
conducted an extensive and rigorous review with numerous
opportunities for public input. This culminated in the
issuance of the Draft SEIS with more opportunities for
public input including a 45-day window for written comments
as well as opportunities to participate in six public
meetings. This extensive review has also included
meaningful input from many federal, state, and local
governments as well as local communities. The Willow
Project located within the NPR-A is consistent with 2022
NPR-A Integrated Plan. Clearly, it is time now to complete
the federal review process and to allow the project to
proceed expediently.
Any unreasonable delays in key infrastructure projects create
regulatory uncertainty and add further obstacles for
developing critical investment in American oil and natural
gas and associated infrastructure, which provide nearly 70%
of our country's energy needs. Such delays would likely
have a chilling effect on vital energy projects and long-
term investment decisions at a time when harnessing
American energy is critical to national security. Overall,
this would hamper our ability to address domestic and
global energy needs, as well as undoubtedly add further
costs to the already-burdened American consumers.
Safe and responsible development of energy resources
within the NRA-A including the Willow Project has
widespread support amongst the affected communities,
including Alaska Natives.\3\ As noted by Senators Murkowski
and Sullivan, ``Alaska Natives are also especially
supportive of this project, as it would contribute to their
economic well-being and prosperity for years to come.'' \4\
The Senators support this statement with specific
references to comment letters from wide-ranging community
members including leaders of the Alaska Federation of
Natives, Alaska Native Village Corporation Association, and
ANCSA Regional Association, as well as the North Slope
communities of Utqiagvik, Wainwright, and Atqasuk.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See for e.g. ``Alaskans voice strong support for Willow
Project.'' Available at: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/
release/alaskans-voice-strong-support-for-willow-project.
\4\ Letter from Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan to U.S.
Department of Interior Secretary Debra Haaland, July 15, 2022.
Available at: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/imo/media /doc /
7.15.22%20-
%20Alaska%20Delegation%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20Haaland%20
re.%20Willow%20SEIS%20(003).pdf.
\5\ Id.
Also, as recently noted by the Inupiat Community of the Arctic
Slope (``ICAS''), North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation (``ASRC'') in a comment letter filed
with the BLM, ``[a]ll actions that unreasonably prohibit,
restrict, or delay oil and gas development in our region
significantly impact our ability to provide critical
services to our people'' and that, ``loss of economic
activity on the North Slope means lost jobs and lost
opportunities for people in a region where economic
opportunity is generally low, and the cost of living is
extremely high.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Comment letter filed with the BLM by ICAS, North Slope Borough,
and ASRC, July 21, 2022. Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/
public_projects/109410/200258032/20064382/250070564/
ICAS_NSB_ASRC_Willow_Ltr_Sec_Haaland_07_21_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter. Overall,
we ask the BLM to remain committed to facilitating federal
environmental reviews and permitting in a timely manner, and to move
forward with the Willow Project without any further delay, especially
given the tremendous public benefits expected from the project.
Approval of key infrastructure energy projects such as Willow Project
is critical for the safe and clean development of the nation's vast
energy sources and in the long-term, will serve to strengthen US
economic and energy security.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Amy Emmert,
Senior Policy Advisor
[all]