[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]