[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINIS-
                    TRATION'S LIMITS ON ACCESS TO
                    THE OCS: IMPACTS ON CONSUMERS, 
                         STATES, AND OPERATORS

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       Thursday, January 11, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-88

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABL 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                    
54-553 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               


                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY


                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                                               
                                CONTENTS

                                 ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, January 11, 2024.......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

    Blankenship, Chris, Commissioner, Alabama Department of 
      Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama....     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

    Holt, David, President, Consumer Energy Alliance, Houston, 
      Texas......................................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    19

    Havens, Mark, Chief Clerk, Texas General Land Office, Austin, 
      Texas......................................................    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    26

    Trevino, Erandi, Organizer, Public Citizen, Houston, Texas...    27
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    31
    Cruickshank, Walter, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC    32
        Prepared statement of....................................    33

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Consumer Energy Alliance, Letter to the Committee........    68

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        2024-2029 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final 
          Program, pg 5-25.......................................    66

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Capital Times, article titled, ``Did Houston energy group 
          dupe MGE customers to back rate changes?'' dated Oct 
          21, 2014...............................................    60
        Cleveland.com/Metro, article titled, ``Nexus pipeline 
          opponents urge U.S. postal service to investigate 
          lobbying group'' dated Sept 16, 2016...................    63
        Post & Courier, article titled, ``S.C. lawmakers call for 
          law enforcement probe of bogus pro-utility emails; Fake 
          emails spur calls for investigation'' dated Feb 20, 
          2018...................................................    64
        International Monetary Fund, ``IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies 
          Data: 2023 Update'', Aug. 2023.........................    70
    
 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S LIMITS ON
     ACCESS TO THE OCS: IMPACTS ON CONSUMERS, STATES, AND OPERATORS

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, January 11, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Gosar, Graves, Webster, 
Tiffany, Rosendale, Hunt, Collins, Duarte, Westerman; Ocasio-
Cortez, Kamlager-Dove, Magaziner, Dingell, and Grijalva.
    Also present: Representative Carl.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Alabama, 
Mr. Carl, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Today, the Energy and Mineral Resources 
Subcommittee will scrutinize the Biden administration's recent 
decisions restricting access to the Outer Continental Shelf for 
oil and gas leasing. These decisions have far-reaching 
implications for consumers, states, industry operators across 
the country, and our national security.
    These limitations, memorialized in the 2024 through the 
2029 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, undermine U.S. 
energy independence and threaten the economic stability of 
states like Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, 
which rely heavily on offshore leasing.
    A prime example is Alaska's Cook Inlet, vital for the 
state's energy and employment, facing an uncertain future with 
no lease sales plan until at least 2030. BOEM's estimates show 
vast untapped gas resources here, yet the agency prioritizes 
speculative greenhouse gas emissions over Alaskans' energy 
needs. This is just another example of unelected bureaucrats 
telling Alaskans that they know better than the state's elected 
leaders, along with the Alaska Native communities, and 
thwarting their numerous requests for offshore lease sales.
    States represented here today have seen their voices 
ignored in public consultations, leading to dire consequences. 
State budgets face steep declines as a result, leading to 
decreased funding for public schools, law enforcement, and 
critical emergency services. Additionally, this puts funding 
for initiatives like GOMESA and the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund at risk, undermining future coastal conservation and 
restoration efforts, along with recreation and land and 
conservation projects in every single community across the 
country.
    The impact on consumers and job markets is equally 
alarming. Higher costs for imported energy and job shortages 
from halted production loom large, compelling operators to seek 
opportunities elsewhere. Discouraging development here at home 
only bolsters the budgets of our foreign adversaries and 
sovereign wealth funds instead of our own states.
    A gallon of gasoline was nearing $3 a gallon in northern 
Minnesota just last week. Mind you, that same gallon was $1.87 
on average in the district I represent the week President Biden 
was sworn into office. These price increases over the past 3 
years are even before we truly begin to feel the effects of 
President Biden's anti-oil-and-gas agenda, including his 
failure to support offshore oil and gas leasing.
    Imagine how energy prices will continue to rise for our 
constituents as this Administration continues to block offshore 
energy production. This paints a worrying picture for the next 
5 years, affecting our energy independence and the economic and 
environmental resilience of these states. As we evaluate these 
policies, it is crucial to remember that offshore leasing is a 
linchpin of our national security and strategic security 
affecting millions of Americans' livelihoods.
    Furthermore, BOEM has taken a totally different approach to 
wind energy leasing, having held multiple sales under the Biden 
administration. Notably, this industry relies heavily upon 
batteries, which require large amounts of key minerals like 
cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, nickel, platinum, and 
vanadium. However, the escalating demand for minerals is not 
supported by a corresponding increase in mineral development, 
primarily due to the Department of the Interior's political 
decisions to block domestic mining, including within the Duluth 
Complex, the largest copper nickel find in the world, located 
in the district I am proud to represent.
    We must examine how these policies will impact our national 
energy security, economic growth, and global competitiveness, 
ensuring that data and practical realities inform our 
decisions, not just Green New Deal fantasies.
    The Bridge Production Act, introduced by my colleague from 
Louisiana, Representative Garret Graves, represents a pivotal 
shift towards a more balanced energy policy. This legislation, 
which has been passed by this Committee, requires 13 offshore 
oil and gas lease sales over the next 5 years. It also included 
my amendment that would ensure we are conducting lease sales 
off the shores of Alaska. Unlike the program proposed by BOEM, 
this legislation aims to bolster domestic energy production, 
reducing reliance on imports, and stabilizing energy markets in 
a manner that is both economically and strategically 
advantageous for all consumers, states, and operators in this 
country.
    I will now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, 
everyone, and welcome to our witnesses. I am glad to be back 
for our first hearing of 2024.
    In the words of Yogi Berra, it is like deja vu all over 
again. Once again, for at least the fifth time in this 
Congress, our colleagues across the aisle have gathered us here 
to discuss how the Biden administration needs to do more for 
the offshore oil and gas industry. Not for the first time, not 
for the second time, not for the third time or fourth time, but 
for the fifth time.
    At today's hearing, we will hear about how the Biden 
administration's plan to ramp down offshore oil and gas leasing 
is hurting our ``energy security and economic futures.'' But 
notably absent from those arguments are whose security and 
whose economic futures?
    Oil and gas companies already control more than 12 million 
acres of Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Over 75 percent 
of the lease industry holds remain unused. To my 
disappointment, it is clear that we will be locked into decades 
more of oil and gas development, and the United States is 
already, including under the Biden administration, producing 
record amounts of oil.
    Oil and gas production continues to climb in the Gulf of 
Mexico already. But rather than Americans seeing lower energy 
prices, as has been the argument; job creation, as has been the 
argument; or ``energy independence'', as has been the argument, 
all we see is increasing profits for oil companies, price 
volatility for consumers, declining industry jobs, increasing 
layoffs, and public health and safety crises exactly in the 
communities where the production is happening.
    For years now, we have seen the industry lay off its oil 
and gas workforce. In just the last 6 years, we have seen over 
700,000 oil and gas workers leaving the industry due to 
drastically declining wages and uncertain futures. At the same 
time, the same oil and gas companies are doling out million-
dollar bonuses to their CEOs, spending billions of dollars in 
stock buybacks to artificially pump up the stock price, and 
raising dividends for mostly already wealthy shareholders.
    Meanwhile, the industry's social and environmental impacts 
are left out of the conversation. According to the U.S. 
Geological Survey, offshore oil and gas accounts for nearly 20 
percent of carbon emissions from Federal lands and waters, and 
my colleagues across the aisle argue that offshore drilling in 
the Gulf is cleaner and safer than abroad. But as my colleague, 
Mr. Huffman, likes to say, that is like arguing filtered 
cigarettes won't cause cancer.
    We are already living with the dangerous consequences of 
our reliance on fossil fuels. Just last week, the United 
Nations released its annual economic outlook for 2024. And in 
it, economists warn that the climate crisis and extreme weather 
as a result of oil and gas production are expected to disrupt 
global food production and exacerbate economic instability 
around the world. Communities along the Gulf Coast must 
constantly grapple with the consequences of oil spills, air and 
water pollution, land loss, and displacement. The relentless 
pursuit of profit has led to the degradation of our resources, 
jeopardizing the health and well-being of American citizens. 
Again, we must ask who is the offshore oil and gas industry 
serving, and who is it leaving behind?
    It is time we ramp down and phase out fossil fuel 
production on Federal lands and waters. It is necessary to 
stave off the worst impacts of the climate crisis and create a 
more equitable future where everyone has the right to live free 
from pollution.
    Our coastal communities can transition in a way that 
supports jobs and cleans up the environment. Ports are already 
supporting the offshore wind industry with more opportunities 
to come. The policies we debate here can help or hinder that 
transition. We must make sure our Federal waters are part of 
the climate solution instead of the climate problem.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield 
back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I am going to now yield 
to the Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Westerman, for 
5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today.
    The Biden administration's agenda of limiting oil and gas 
lease sales at all cost sets a deeply troubling precedent for 
American offshore access, impacting states, consumers, and 
domestic operators. Today, this Subcommittee will scrutinize 
the Biden administration's decision to drastically reduce 
leasing opportunities in its finalized National Outer 
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2024 through 
2029.
    And yes, we are here again, and we will be here more times 
until this Administration does the right thing and starts 
putting America first and putting American producers and our 
national security first, instead of continuing down this 
detrimental policy path that they have been on this whole 
Administration.
    This monumental mis-step that is nearly 2 years late marks 
an unprecedented shift in offshore policies. For the first time 
ever, there will be a 2-year gap in leasing plans. And for the 
first time since 1958, no oil and gas lease sales will happen 
in this calendar year. It includes only 3 sales over a 5-year 
period, compared to 11 sales in the previous plan. This is not 
just a break from tradition; it is a radical pivot by Secretary 
Haaland and Director Klein with catastrophic repercussions for 
our energy future.
    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's 2024 through 2029 
leasing program should concern all Americans, but ironically 
presents a great opportunity for OPEC and our adversaries. With 
fewer opportunities to lease in U.S. waters, investment will 
flow overseas and hostile nations will have greater influence 
over global energy markets. This is especially concerning when 
you consider the current conflicts in the Middle East.
    The economic analysis underpinning the proposed leasing 
plan is a critical component of the program development 
process. However, BOEM's own analysis seems to plainly show 
that the Biden administration's energy policy is not realistic, 
not by a long shot. Consider this: BOEM's plan assumes a 400 
percent increase in transmission capacity over the next 30 
years. This would mean quadrupling the transmission capacity 
built since 1882 to ensure reliable energy supply under this 
plan.
    With such unrealistic assumptions underpinning BOEM's 
analysis, the planned reduction in lease sales will clearly 
have serious consequences for our energy supply, and that is 
not even to mention that this Administration is totally against 
mining U.S. minerals that would be required to build those 
transmission lines. So, not only do they attack the fossil fuel 
sector, they are also attacking the mineral extraction and 
refining that is necessary to build out an electrical grid.
    The Biden administration's leasing plan is a self-inflicted 
wound, putting at risk our national security, economic 
vitality, and the livelihoods of countless Americans. It will 
also jeopardize conservation efforts that the Biden 
administration claims to support. Offshore oil and gas revenues 
play a crucial role in supporting the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and state budgets under the Gulf of Mexico 
Energy Security Act.
    These revenues are not only vital for state conservation 
and recreational projects, but also contribute significantly to 
the Great American Outdoors Act, which focuses on addressing 
maintenance backlogs at our national parks, which we had an 
oversight hearing on the GAOA yesterday, and it was determined 
that the Park Service underestimated their needs from $12.7 
billion is what they said 5 years ago. We have spent $5.3 
billion, and now they say their backlog is at $22 billion. So, 
the Administration's plan is to cut off oil and gas leasing in 
the Gulf, which would greatly hamper future funding streams for 
Park Service maintenance backlog.
    My colleagues across the aisle should consider that the 
Biden administration's policies are undermining goals like 
coastal conservation and hurricane protection, wildlife habitat 
enhancements, recreation, and public lands access, and water 
resource management. It is time to re-assess and re-align our 
energy policies with practical, economically sound solutions.
    The Republican Majority on this Committee has put forth a 
practical solution to correct this mistake in BOEM's 2024 
through 2029 program. Representative Graves' Bridge Production 
Act, H.R. 5616, requires 13 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 
and offshore Alaska over the next 5 years. This bill removes 
obstacles to OCS access for operators, ensures a realistic plan 
to lower prices for consumers, and provides certainty to states 
like Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas so they 
can plan for the future.
    I look forward to the hearing, and I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We will now 
move to introduce our witnesses.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I will now yield 30 seconds to Representative Carl to 
introduce our first witness.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As always, it is a pleasure 
to have an Alabamian up here in Washington. And today, we are 
fortunate to have Commissioner Chris Blankenship join us.
    With a wealth of experience since 1994 in the Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources, he is our go-to source for 
all things natural resources and conservation. He will be 
diving into the nitty gritty of the GOMESA funding, focus on 
its critical impact on the coastal Alabama projects, 
particularly in the underserved communities. Think water 
quality, public boating access, shoreside enhancement of parks, 
a true game changer. Commissioner Blankenship will shed lights 
on the challenges like the GOMESA cap and the potential setback 
for minimum proposed lease sales in the next 5 years, affecting 
funding for both GOMESA and the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund project.
    Commissioner Chris Blankenship, thank you, sir, for being 
here.

    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Blankenship, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

     STATEMENT OF CHRIS BLANKENSHIP, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA 
 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY, 
                            ALABAMA

    Mr. Blankenship. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. Chairman, 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today to testify on the extremely important 
subject of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and the 
positive impacts that the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
has had on our beautiful state.
    I grew up on Dauphin Island, Alabama. Most of my life, we 
have had production from natural gas wells right off of our 
shores. Many of my friends I grew up with work in the oil and 
gas industry. Those good-paying jobs are an economic engine for 
coastal towns. The views of the platforms and workboats during 
the day and the amber glow of the lights of the rigs at night 
are a familiar sight from my hometown.
    The Alabama Department of Conservation administers the 
GOMESA program and is the state agency charged with leasing 
state water bottoms for exploration, development, and 
production of oil and gas, and coordinating with Federal 
agencies on OCS activities. The amount of GOMESA revenue 
received per year fluctuates and is based on several factors. 
In years when the lease sales have occurred, the distributions 
to Alabama through GOMESA revenue sharing are generally 50 
percent higher than in years with no sales. Since the Phase II 
revenue sharing formula was implemented in 2017, Alabama has 
received approximately $227 million. Just last year, we 
received almost $50 million to do good work.
    The GOMESA projects that we have funded in Alabama have had 
a great impact on improving public access to our waterfront, 
increasing boating access to our waterways, creating some 
special places for outdoor recreation, improving coastal water 
quality, and providing critical scientific information that is 
needed to better protect and preserve Mobile Bay and the Gulf 
of Mexico and their tributaries. The slate of projects funded 
included 15 shoreside waterfront public access park improvement 
projects that will help our citizens and guests with and 
without boats enjoy the waterfront and the great outdoors.
    I am most proud of the commitment that we have made to 
providing boating access using GOMESA and other funding. GOMESA 
has funded 18 boating access projects in communities of diverse 
economic situations, and will serve all of our citizens, no 
matter their zip code. As you may know, undeveloped waterfront 
property availability is fast shrinking along the coast, making 
acquisitions for park and public access even more important.
    One project I would like to highlight is the Mobile Bay 
Western Shore acquisition of more than 1,400 feet of bayfront. 
This is some of the last remaining undeveloped land, and will 
provide public access along Mobile Bay. This project leverages 
NFWF-funded Salt Aire Nature Preserve project to create a 
really special waterfront park for Mobile County. This project 
is just one example of how we can use GOMESA in conjunction 
with other funding to do special and long-lasting work.
    With the growth of our coastal population, our sewer and 
stormwater systems are stressed. Several utilities in coastal 
Alabama will undertake sewer improvements or convert septic 
systems to sewer to improve water quality. The new school at 
the University of South Alabama of Marine and Environmental 
Science will be strengthened and realize increased research 
capacity by GOMESA, funding their Healthy Oceans initiative. 
The school is a great asset to coastal Alabama, and will train 
students to improve our fisheries and coastal processes for 
generations to come, and will provide critical scientific data 
needed to better manage our resources.
    All of these projects will have a positive impact on 
coastal Alabama and add to our already wonderful quality of 
life in our coast. I look forward to being able to fund similar 
projects in future years.
    The state of Alabama understands the critical importance of 
OCS oil and gas production to our economy and national 
security, and we have long supported a balanced and reasonable 
leasing program. The total of three lease sales in the recently 
published 5-year program is the lowest for any offshore 5-year 
leasing program to date. The lack of lease sales will most 
definitely negatively impact the short-term revenues the state 
of Alabama will receive through GOMESA revenue sharing.
    Compounding the short-term loss of revenue, having fewer 
wells in operation in the Gulf of Mexico due to the limited 
lease sales will impact production in future years and will 
have a compounding negative impact on revenue sharing moving 
forward. This lack of fiscal resources will impede our ability 
to fund beneficial, long-term projects in coastal Alabama like 
the ones mentioned before. This hit is on top of the loss of 
jobs and business infrastructure related to oil and gas 
exploration and production in the northern Gulf of Mexico due 
to fewer operational wells.
    The successful development of the Gulf of Mexico OCS 
clearly demonstrates that responsible offshore oil and gas 
development can generate many good-paying jobs, spur activity 
in a host of associated industries, and generate billions of 
dollars in revenue. We strongly urge the Administration to 
support existing revenue sharing with the four participating 
Gulf states, as well as any legislative efforts to expand and 
enhance revenue sharing.
    Further, I believe the existing revenue sharing cap for the 
Gulf of Mexico under GOMESA should be lifted, thus ensuring a 
more equitable system to share the benefits of offshore 
development with the affected states.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this 
most worthy discussion. The GOMESA program and OCS exploration 
and production is of the utmost importance to the people of the 
coastal economy of the state of Alabama. If I can ever assist 
in any way on this or any other issue before the Committee, 
please feel free to contact me. I am at your service. Thank 
you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Blankenship follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Mr. Christopher Blankenship, Commissioner, 
        Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the extremely 
important subject of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing and 
the positive impacts that the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 
2006 (GoMESA) has had on our beautiful state. I am Chris Blankenship, 
and I am the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Conservation and 
Natural Resources. I was appointed Commissioner by Governor Kay Ivey in 
2017.
    Under Alabama law, the Alabama Department of Conservation and 
Natural Resources (ADCNR) is the state agency charged with leasing 
state water bottoms for exploration, development and production of oil, 
gas and other minerals and coordinating with the federal agencies on 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities. Most people think of us only 
as the agency responsible for deer, turkey, fish, and game management 
as well as management of the Alabama State Parks; however, the 
stewardship of the mineral resources of Alabama and the Gulf of Mexico 
is an important responsibility we hold dear.
    I am so honored to appear before you today because, for the State 
of Alabama, the revenue and jobs associated with OCS exploration and 
production have been vital to the people and resources of Alabama and 
are a large part of the financial opportunities we have to positively 
impact our people.
    I grew up on Dauphin Island. Dauphin Island is a barrier island on 
our coast. Most all my life, we have had production from natural gas 
wells right off the shores of the Island. Many of my friends I grew up 
with work in the oil and gas industry. Those good-paying jobs are an 
economic engine for coastal towns. The views of the platforms and work 
boats during the day and the amber glow of the lights of the rigs at 
night are a familiar and treasured sight from my hometown.
    Alabama has a relatively small coastline compared to the other Gulf 
States. Even though the coastline of Alabama is less than 5% of the 
total Gulf coastline, the revenues from all of the wells in the Gulf of 
Mexico through the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act allow ADCNR to 
improve many underserved and impoverished communities along the coast.

    The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GoMESA) was enacted by 
Congress in 2006 and significantly enhances Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS) oil and gas leasing activities and revenue sharing in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Among other things, GoMESA provides for enhanced sharing of 
leasing revenues with Gulf of Mexico producing states for coastal 
restoration projects. The GoMESA authorizes uses of the proceeds for 
the following purposes:

  a.  Projects and activities for the purposes of coastal protection, 
            including conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane 
            protection, and infrastructure directly affected by coastal 
            wetland losses;

  b.  Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources;

  c.  Implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal, or 
            comprehensive conservation management plan;

  d.  Mitigation of the impact of Outer Continental Shelf activities 
            through the funding of onshore infrastructure projects;

  e.  Planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying 
            with this section.

    GoMESA also provides 12.5% of revenues to the Land & Water 
Conservation Fund for recreational access projects through the National 
Park Service.
    Revenue sharing under Phase I of GoMESA began in Fiscal Year 2009 
with a moderate disbursement of $7,723,845 to the State of Alabama and 
its two Coastal Political Subdivisions (CPS), Mobile and Baldwin 
Counties. In the eight fiscal years that followed, the disbursements 
were for much lower dollar figures. From FY 2009 through FY 2017, the 
State of Alabama and the CPS received a total of just over $11 million; 
again, $7.7 million of that total was received in FY 2009 alone.
    Beginning in FY 2018, the formula and area of leases and production 
used to calculate the shared revenue moved into the Phase II 
calculation, resulting in a substantial increase in revenue for the 
states and CPS. In FY 2018, Alabama and our CPS received $26,777,614. 
In contrast, the year before, in FY 2017, Alabama received less than 
$300,000! Since the Phase II revenue sharing formula was implemented, 
Alabama has received approximately $227,058,049. Just last year, we 
received almost $50 million to do good work in Alabama!
    The amount of revenue received per year fluctuates and is based on 
several factors, including price of oil and gas, the distance of each 
producing well from each state, the population and coastline lengths of 
the CPS, rents, and bonuses from each well site, and the amount of 
funds realized from lease sales. In years when lease sales have 
occurred, the distributions to the states through GoMESA revenue 
sharing are generally 50% higher than in years with no lease sales. The 
increased funding in years following new lease sales has allowed us to 
do significant and impactful work in Coastal Alabama communities.
GoMESA Funded Projects in Alabama

    The GoMESA projects we have funded in Alabama have had a great 
impact on improving public access to our waterfront, increasing boating 
access to our waterways, creating some special places for outdoor 
recreation, improving coastal water quality, and providing critical 
scientific information that is needed to better protect and preserve 
our beautiful Mobile Bay and Gulf of Mexico and their tributaries.
    Outdoor recreation is a huge part of the quality of life in Coastal 
Alabama, especially recreation on the waterfront. The slate of projects 
funded includes fifteen (15) shoreside waterfront public access and 
park improvement projects that will help our citizens and guests with 
and without boats enjoy the waterfront and great outdoors. Projects are 
being implemented at Cooper Riverside Park and Brookley by the Bay in 
the City of Mobile, Triangle Park in Fairhope, Bayfront Park in Daphne, 
Centennial Park in Robertsdale, Cypress Point Park in Spanish Fort, the 
Mobile County Blueways development, Graham Creek Nature Preserve in 
Foley, the GulfQuest Museum, Lake Shelby at Gulf State Park, Cedar 
Point Pier in Mobile County, Green Park and Aloe Bay on Dauphin Island, 
the Bartram Canoe Trail in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta and Perdido River, 
and at the Five Rivers Delta Resources Center on the Mobile Causeway, 
the gateway into the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, also known as America's 
Amazon.
    Alabama has more miles of navigable waterways than almost any 
state. Access to the water is a critical need. I am most proud of the 
commitment Governor Ivey and ADCNR have made to provide this access 
using GoMESA and other funding. The GoMESA funded projects include 
eighteen (18) boating access projects in communities of diverse 
economic situations and will serve all our citizens, no matter their 
zip code. The projects are completed or underway on Halls Mill Creek in 
the City of Mobile, in Mobile County (Cedar Point), Bayou la Batre, 
Daphne, Fairhope, Weeks Bay, Chickasaw, Satsuma, Three Mile Creek 
(Africatown), and Mt. Vernon. Additional projects are completed or 
underway at the Chocolatta Ramp and Middleton Ramp on the Mobile 
Causeway, at County Road 6 Ramp, and at the large Intracoastal Waterway 
Ramp in Baldwin County. The construction of a new ramp in Aloe Bay on 
Dauphin Island as well as renovation of the two heavily used ramps on 
the East end of Dauphin Island, and the restoration of the D'Olive Bay 
Boat Channel to improve boating access in Daphne are also underway or 
completed.
    As you may know, undeveloped waterfront property availability is 
fast shrinking along the coast, making acquisition for parks and public 
access even more important. Governor Ivey has approved seven land 
acquisition projects that will create public water and recreation 
access in Spanish Fort, the Fort Morgan Peninsula, the Western Shore of 
Mobile Bay, Foley, West Fowl River in Coden, in Baldwin County near the 
Magnolia River, and along the Perdido and Blackwater Rivers in Baldwin 
County.
    One particular project I would like to highlight is the Mobile Bay 
Western Shore Acquisition with 1400' of bayfront; this is some of the 
last remaining undeveloped land that will provide public access along 
Mobile Bay. This project leverages the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation funded Mobile County Saltaire Nature Preserve Project just 
north of Fowl River to really create a special large park space for 
Mobile County. This project is just one example of how we can use 
GoMESA in conjunction with other funding sources to do really special 
and long-lasting work.
    Water quality improvement is of the utmost importance in Mobile Bay 
and its tributaries. With the growth of our coastal population, our 
sewer and stormwater systems are stressed. Several utilities in Coastal 
Alabama will undertake sewer improvements or convert septic systems to 
sewer treatment to improve water quality. The Bayou la Batre Utilities, 
Daphne Utilities, Dauphin Island Water and Sewer Authority, the City of 
Chickasaw, and the Mobile County Water, Sewer and Fire Protection 
Authority will implement these improvements. The City of Loxley has a 
stormwater improvement project as well.
    The City of Orange Beach has undertaken a five-year project to 
remove marine debris and litter from the waters in South Baldwin 
County, and the ADCNR State Parks Division will enhance recreational 
opportunities at Gulf State Park, including at the beach pavilion and 
in the repurposed golf course area.
    The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has also 
undertaken a comprehensive project to remove litter from the waters in 
South Alabama.
    Most of the rain that falls on the land of Alabama ends up in 
Mobile Bay. The Alabama Forestry Commission will use a GoMESA award to 
work with landowners on proper forest management including streamside 
riparian buffers, stream and creek restoration, and other activities 
that will improve the forested watersheds that empty into Mobile Bay.
    The City of Fairhope will make streambed improvements in Fly Creek 
to reduce sedimentation into Mobile Bay, and Baldwin County will use 
the Kelly Pits property near the Magnolia River to construct wetlands 
and retention structures to harness the runoff and stormwater from 
development that is having a negative impact on the Magnolia River and 
Weeks Bay.
    These projects are the first projects funded by the larger Water 
Quality Improvement Program that is being administered by the Alabama 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. More projects will be 
announced soon using dollars from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 
funding to leverage the gains made with the GoMESA funded projects.
    Scientific research and corresponding data are critical tools for 
us as resource managers. Understanding the current situation in our 
coastal environment and fisheries and seeing the trends over time are 
integral components of resource management. The Deepwater Horizon Oil 
Spill highlighted the lack of information we had on certain species or 
geographic areas. GoMESA funding has allowed us to close some of these 
gaps and has provided us with the information we need moving forward.
    The new School of Marine and Environmental Sciences at the 
University of South Alabama, chaired by Dr. Sean Powers, will be 
strengthened and realize increased research capacity by the GoMESA 
funding of their Healthy Ocean Initiative. The school is a great asset 
to Coastal Alabama and will train students to improve our fisheries and 
coastal processes for generations to come and will provide critical 
scientific data needed to better manage our marine resources.
    In the North-Central Gulf of Mexico, there is no research vessel 
capable of working multiple days in the Gulf. Alabama is funding the 
construction of a top-notch large research vessel for the Dauphin 
Island Sea Lab (DISL), an internationally recognized consortium of 
universities focused on marine science. This vessel will allow DISL to 
do a myriad of good scientific work on and off the Continental Shelf 
providing science and data we have never previously had to inform 
management decisions.
    Work is underway on manatee habitat mapping and stranding response 
in Alabama, oyster research through the Auburn Shellfish Lab, sediment 
and water chemistry work through the Geological Survey of Alabama, and 
on tide gauge information in several critical rivers and tributaries to 
Mobile Bay.
    One small project with the Alabama Department of Public Health 
(ADPH) really shows the value of these funds. Previously, Alabama had 
to send samples to Florida or a private lab to test waters and oysters 
for bacteria during harmful algal blooms because we did not have the 
capability to do these tests in Alabama. The GoMESA project purchased 
the equipment needed for ADPH to do this work. This means decisions can 
be made in hours instead of days or weeks to better protect the public 
health and to minimize oyster closures which benefits oyster farmers.
    These projects will have a positive impact in Coastal Alabama and 
add to our already wonderful coastal quality of life. I look forward to 
being able to fund similar projects in future years. The combined 
impact of all of these projects is staggering! I would like to 
recognize ADCNR State Lands Director Patti McCurdy and her team who 
continue to work with these agencies and towns to distribute the funds, 
implement these projects, and track them moving forward to completion.
Rigs to Reef Program

    Alabama has the largest artificial reef program in the United 
States. Red snapper, as well as other reef fish, need structure to 
thrive. The City of Orange Beach is known as ``The Red Snapper Capital 
of the World.'' The charter and for-hire fleet in Orange Beach contains 
more than 200 vessels. This is the largest homeport for charter and 
for-hire vessels in the entire Gulf of Mexico. The people of the 
coastal areas of Alabama and particularly the people of the cities of 
Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, and Dauphin Island are proud of the 
outstanding red snapper fishery we have in the federal waters adjacent 
to Alabama. We land 35-40% of all red snapper harvested in the United 
States portion of the Gulf of Mexico. You might wonder how a state with 
such a small coastline could land that many red snapper. The State of 
Alabama has built this premier red snapper fishery through the creation 
of man-made artificial reefs.
    The water bottoms off the coast of Alabama are relatively flat with 
very little relief. Until the last 50 years, the only places that red 
snapper were caught off our coast were on the very few natural reefs 
and outcroppings in the Gulf. Beginning in the 1950s, the ADCNR began 
placing material in the waters offshore to create habitat for reef 
fish. The initial placements were so successful that in the 1970s 
Alabama worked with the Corps of Engineers to create the Alabama 
Artificial Reef Zone. This 1,030-square-mile area in federal waters 
adjacent to Alabama is managed by ADCNR. Over the past 40-plus years, 
thousands of reefs have been placed in the reef zone. These reefs 
include over 100 decommissioned military tanks, concrete bridge rubble 
and metal bridge spans, over 1,000 10-foot-tall concrete pyramids, many 
barges, ships, tugboats, airplanes, dry docks, concrete culverts, and 
pipes.
    The largest reefs in our Artificial Reef Program come from 
decommissioned oil and gas platforms. While the rigs are in production, 
they are called ``Islands of Life'' as they act as artificial reef 
structures in the Gulf of Mexico. The habitat created by these rigs in 
the entire water column, from surface to seabed, is incredible. 
Organisms of all trophic levels benefit from the structure and marine 
growth on the platform legs and support. These ecosystems develop and 
grow over the many years these platforms are in the water. The 
thousands of platforms in the Gulf have created untold benefits for red 
snapper, amberjack, grouper, spadefish, sharks, triggerfish, croakers, 
white trout and many, many other species, including several endangered 
species of sea turtles and marine mammals. Many times in the 
discussions on the pros and cons of OCS production, the positive 
benefit the rigs have on habitat creation and marine populations, as 
well as recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, is lost in 
the conversation. This is a huge benefit to our marine resources and 
the people who enjoy them!
    When the wells have produced all that is economically viable, the 
exploration companies are required by federal law to decommission the 
structures within a certain time period. The removal of the platforms 
and supporting structure from the water causes the loss of this 
critical habitat mentioned above.
    The choices to decommission are to move the structures to land and 
scrap them, move them to another site, or, more recently, to have them 
reefed in place through an agreement with a state agency responsible 
for the artificial reef programs in that state.
    Over the past two decades, Alabama has reefed in place, or in close 
proximity, several decommissioned oil or gas production platforms to 
keep the ecosystem functions of these ``Islands of Life'' in our marine 
resources production. These new Rigs-to-Reef sites are huge and support 
production of fish and other organisms for many decades after 
deployment. These reefs are some of the most popular spots for both 
commercial and recreational fishermen targeting pelagic, migratory, and 
reef fish. I have never visited one of these reefs when I didn't see a 
sea turtle, shark, or dolphin enjoying the benefits of this protected 
habitat.
    All of the artificial reef habitat creation has caused the 
population of red snapper to increase substantially off the coast of 
Alabama. Oil and gas structures, both while in production and when 
reefed in place after decommissioning, are a large part of the success 
of our artificial reef program and are a direct contributor to the 
population increase in this fishery and others.
Alabama is Supportive of OCS Leasing and Production

    Governor Ivey and the State of Alabama understand the critical 
importance of OCS oil and natural gas production to our economy and 
national security, and we have long supported a balanced and reasonable 
leasing program that leads to the prudent and safe exploration, 
development, and production of OCS hydrocarbon resources. Further, we 
were supportive of the policy outlined in President Trump's Executive 
Order 13795, which states that it is ``the policy of the United States 
to encourage energy exploration and production, including on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, in order to maintain the Nation's position as a 
global energy leader and foster energy security and resilience for the 
benefit of the American people, while ensuring that any such activity 
is safe and environmentally responsible.'' As a state with significant 
onshore and offshore oil and natural gas production in our state water 
jurisdiction, as well as the OCS production in Federal waters off our 
coast, Alabama is an active participant in this regard.
    It has long been Alabama's policy that our support for offshore 
development is contingent on all OCS activities in waters adjacent to 
our coast being carried out in full compliance with relevant Alabama 
laws, rules, and regulations and in a manner that is fully compliant 
and consistent with our Coastal Zone Management Program.
    After the painful lessons of the Deepwater Horizon event, it is of 
the utmost importance that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 
and its sister agency, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement (BSEE), oversee all OCS oil and natural gas activities in a 
manner that protects us from future incidents of this nature. However, 
we are confident that BOEM and BSEE will constantly examine procedures 
and processes to continuously improve their ability, as well as that of 
the industry operating on the OCS, to provide for safe and 
environmentally prudent operations.
    Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, BOEM must prepare and 
maintain forward-looking five-year plans to schedule proposed oil and 
gas lease sales on the OCS. The previous five-year plan covered 2017-
2022 and expired on June 30, 2022. There has been a gap of time with no 
plan. That should be unacceptable. However, the latest five-year plan 
was released late last year and begins in July 2024, more than a two-
year gap. The total of three lease sales in the 2024-2029 five-year 
program is the lowest for any offshore five-year leasing program to 
date. Previously, the lowest total had been 11 sales scheduled in the 
plan for 2017-2022. Notably, all past programs (including the 2017-2022 
program) had scheduled lease sales at least annually for the Western 
and Central Gulf of Mexico planning areas, the primary U.S. locations 
for offshore oil and gas production. By contrast, the 2024-2029 program 
contains some years in which no Gulf lease sale would be held.
    The lack of lease sales will most definitely negatively impact the 
short-term revenues the State of Alabama will receive though GoMESA 
revenue sharing. Compounding this short-term loss of revenue, having 
fewer wells in operation in the Gulf of Mexico, due to limited lease 
sales, will impact production in future years and will have a 
compounding negative impact on revenue sharing moving forward. This 
lack of fiscal resources will impede our ability to fund beneficial 
long-term projects in Coastal Alabama, like the ones mentioned above. 
This hit is on top of the loss of jobs and business infrastructure 
related to oil and gas exploration and production in the Northern Gulf 
of Mexico due to fewer operational wells.
    As decisions are made in development of the National OCS Program, 
BOEM should very carefully weigh our future energy needs, our national 
security, and other important factors, such as economic impacts on 
coastal communities, both positive and negative, and environmental 
concerns, in determining additional areas to be included in the program 
and subject to leasing.
    The successful development of the Gulf of Mexico OCS clearly 
demonstrates that responsible offshore oil and gas development can 
generate many good-paying jobs, spur activity in a host of associated 
industries, and generate billions of dollars in revenue.
    I want to continue to emphasize that the revenues associated with 
OCS-wide lease sales and subsequent development and production, as well 
as revenues from existing production, should be shared in a fair and 
equitable way with the adjacent states that support leasing and 
development, such as Alabama. We strongly urge the Administration to 
support existing revenue sharing with the four participating Gulf 
states, as well as any legislative efforts to expand and enhance such 
revenue sharing. Further, I believe that the existing revenue sharing 
cap for the Gulf States under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
(GOMESA) should be lifted, thus ensuring a more equitable system to 
share the benefits of offshore development with the affected states. 
Although the current system of limited revenue sharing utilized in the 
Gulf of Mexico provides state governments with some resources to expand 
coastal management and conservation as well as build new docks, boat 
ramps, parks, and other necessary infrastructure and expand other 
public services, I firmly believe that expanded and enhanced revenue 
sharing and a return to more normal leasing opportunities will allow 
states to more properly address the coastal impacts of offshore 
production and put them in better position to support OCS activities.
    I recognize and respect that the Department of the Interior (DOI) 
is constrained by current law and, thus, to the limited revenue sharing 
provisions contained in the currently applicable statutes, such as 
GoMESA. I request we all work toward the enactment of new legislation 
to make additional and significant revenue sharing with affected 
states, such as Alabama, a reality in the very near future.
    I look forward to working cooperatively with this and future 
administrations, BOEM, and BSEE in the successful and safe development 
of the hydrocarbon resources located off Alabama's shores and other OCS 
areas, as well as to sharing in the benefits of OCS leasing and 
production activities.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this most 
worthy discussion. The GoMESA program and OCS exploration and 
production is of utmost importance to the people and the coastal 
economy of the State of Alabama. If I can ever assist in any way on 
this or any other issue before your committee, please feel free to 
contact me. I am at your service.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. 
David Holt. He is the President of Consumer Energy Alliance, 
based in Houston, Texas.
    Mr. Holt, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF DAVID HOLT, PRESIDENT, CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE, 
                         HOUSTON, TEXAS

    Mr. Holt. Thank you. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, members of the Committee, happy new year, and 
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf 
of Consumer Energy Alliance and our members that represent much 
of the U.S. economy.
    Small businesses, farmers, ranchers, truckers, ports, 
labor, manufacturers, and families are all part of the Consumer 
Energy Alliance. Since 2006, CEA's mission has been to advocate 
for affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible 
energy. Our view is that every energy resource is needed to 
help lower energy costs and improve our environment.
    In the last few years, American families and businesses 
have suffered from record inflation, largely due to higher 
energy prices. During the gasoline peak of 2022, U.S. prices 
reached almost $5 a gallon, creating financial hardship for as 
many as 67 percent of Americans. When diesel prices reached $6 
a gallon in 2022, the cost for almost all consumer goods also 
went up because all groceries, clothing, construction supplies, 
and every other good is delivered by truck. Therefore, this 
increased cost forced American families to pay more for 
virtually everything.
    Fuel and electricity account for 15 percent of U.S. farm 
costs, so every extra penny farmers pay is passed on to 
customers, be they restaurants or families. This one-two punch 
hits low-economy, low-income and rural households the worst, 
because they devote a higher share of their spending to food 
and energy, with the average share of gasoline spending in 
lower-income households rising 9.5 percent in 2022. Pipeline 
constraints in the Northeast contributed to a forecast of 64 
percent higher electricity bills last winter, which is about 
$1,500 for a typical Massachusetts household.
    Why have we seen increases in energy prices in the last 3 
years, and why are we likely to see higher energy prices and 
less reliable supply going forward? Much is due to Federal and 
state energy policies that, while well-intentioned, in reality 
limit energy supply, increase prices, make energy less 
reliable, and ultimately harm the very people that they are 
said to protect.
    In 2010, oil and natural gas totaled 63 percent of U.S. 
consumption. In 2022, it went up to 72 percent. Globally, oil 
and natural gas still makes up 84 percent of all energy. The 
fact is that energy demand continues to increase, and oil and 
natural gas are still required.
    Further, as renewables increase, policies must ensure that 
we have baseload or always-on power, such as natural gas or 
nuclear, to keep the lights on when the wind or sun refuse to 
cooperate. That means policies must not limit energy choice 
while we move toward more environmentally conscious energy.
    In the Gulf of Mexico, where energy production has been 
proven to be less emissions intensive than the rest of the 
world, regulations by this Administration, after delaying any 
offshore program for the longest period in U.S. history, have 
now effectively shut down future oil and gas development in an 
area that accounts for about 15 percent of total U.S. 
production, a large source of long-term, viable energy. The 
Administration has issued the fewest number of lease sales ever 
recorded, and in 2024, we will have no lease sales for the 
first time since the 1950s.
    For these and other reasons, and because energy impacts 
everyone, regardless of political affiliation, we urge Congress 
to take bipartisan legislative action to legally require future 
commercially viable lease sales and unimpeded commercial 
activity in the Gulf to be guaranteed affordable and reliable 
energy for future generations.
    Across the country, we are already seeing examples of how 
restrictive energy policies are impacting families and small 
businesses. California, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, 
and other states that have limited energy choice are already 
seeing significant increases in the price of gasoline, diesel, 
and electricity in those states. These are real-world examples 
that show what restrictive energy policies can do. The current 
offshore policies are, unfortunately, another example of these 
type of restrictions.
    Further, the United States is proving that we can produce 
affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible energy at 
the same time. The DOE has reported that restricting offshore 
oil and gas could actually increase emissions. From 2005 to 
2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined by almost 19 
percent while the rest of the world's greenhouse gas emissions 
increased by over 18 percent.
    That said, we must all continue to strive toward further 
environmental progress. But, unfortunately, restrictive energy 
policies like those imposed on the Gulf are not advancing our 
environmental goals in a meaningful way. They are, however, 
negatively impacting our economy, our pocketbooks, and the 
probability of blackouts. Consumers are the ones who suffer.
    I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. 
My full written testimony is available in the record, and I 
look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
 Prepared Statement of David Holt, President, Consumer Energy Alliance

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on 
behalf of Consumer Energy Alliance and our membership of over 350 
affiliates and 500,000 individuals that represent almost every portion 
of the American consuming economy--from small businesses, to farmers 
and ranchers, truckers, ports, labor, manufacturers, chambers of 
commerce, and, above all, American families.
    Since its founding in 2006, CEA's mission has been to advocate for 
affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable energy 
development. We are an energy agnostic organization; we do not play the 
game of picking winners or losers. In fact, our view is that every 
energy source is a winner when it helps lower energy costs for American 
consumers.
Energy & Inflation

    In the last few years, we've seen American families and businesses 
suffer greatly from record inflation, much of which can be attributed 
to rising energy costs. We've seen Americans at all income levels 
struggle to afford basic necessities, such as gas and groceries. 
Economists may find it useful to remove food and fuel from inflation 
statistics, but people can't--so they feel the costs regardless.
    During the gasoline price peak in June 2022, when average U.S. 
prices reached almost $5 a gallon, a Gallup poll revealed that gasoline 
prices were causing financial hardship for 67% of Americans.
    Higher diesel prices are often called a hidden tax on Americans 
because they are passed onto consumers through various surcharges and 
increased rates on goods. Retail diesel fuel prices reached almost $6 
per gallon average in the summer of 2022. As little as a one-cent 
increase in the average price of diesel can add up to another $350-$370 
million a year in fuel expenses across the trucking industry. The 
diesel price increase sent truck fleet expenses soaring to $2.25 per 
mile in 2022.
    Not only did this put much of America's trucking industry at 
increased risk of bankruptcy, it trickled down to American families who 
paid nearly 6% more for food in 2023 than in 2022.
    Fuel and electricity account for about 15% of U.S. farm operating 
costs, so every extra penny farmers pay to feed the nation ends up 
passed on to customers, be they restaurants or families stocking up for 
the week.
    Higher fuel prices also lead directly to higher costs for 
manufacturing, production, packaging, and shipping costs, once again 
borne by the consumer in the form of higher shelf prices and inflation.
    And because rural households tend to have higher travel expenses--
simply because they travel 17% more miles annually than urban 
residents--they are more likely to be negatively affected by increases 
in gas prices than urban households.
    Low-income households are the most adversely affected by rising 
energy costs because these households disproportionately devote a 
higher share of their spending to food and energy, making them highly 
vulnerable to fuel price shocks. The average share of gasoline spending 
in lower-income households making less than $50,000 rose to 9.5% during 
the 2022 gas price peak. Average households at the same time spent 
7.8%.
    Just last year, 52% of Americans reported that they did not have 
emergency savings to cover unexpected increases in expenses due to 
inflation and rising energy costs. This only gets worse with higher 
energy bills.
    Restrictions on natural gas and inadequate pipeline infrastructure 
have caused many regions of the U.S. to see dramatically higher 
electricity bills. For example, if a family is using 850 kilowatt-hours 
of electricity per month--the U.S. average--a one-cent ($0.01) increase 
per kilowatt-hour would cost them an additional $102 per year. Now 
imagine if bills rise by 10 cents a kilowatt-hour or more.
    To underscore this point and the impact of energy policies that 
eliminate affordable and reliable energy choices, natural gas pipeline 
restrictions in the Northeast contributed to electricity bills that 
were forecast to rise by as much as 64%, or by nearly $1,500 a year for 
the average Massachusetts household.
    Americans cannot continue to afford rising energy costs, whether 
they be at the pump or in their electricity bills.
Policies Harming Energy Prices & Reliability

    Why have we seen drastic increases in energy costs in the past 
three years? And, why are we more likely to see higher prices and less 
reliable supply going forward?
    Much of the reason lies in state and federal energy policies that, 
on their face are well-intentioned, but in reality, limit domestic 
energy supply, increase prices, make energy less reliable, and, 
ultimately, harm the very people that supporters of these the policies 
say they are meant to protect.
    By removing reliable energy sources, such as natural gas and oil, 
and imposing regulations which force closures of critical energy 
infrastructure, policies can create a scenario in which there is not 
enough energy to keep pace with the energy demands that are inherent in 
a thriving economy like America's.
    Then there is the unsupported claim that natural gas and oil can be 
removed from our energy mix, right now.
    Oil and gas as sources of energy are going nowhere.
    In 2010, petroleum and natural gas consumption as an energy source 
in the U.S. totaled 63%, with nuclear power and other sources making up 
the difference. However, in 2022, 72% of U.S. energy consumption is 
comprised of oil and natural gas--an almost 10% increase--with 
renewables and nuclear accounting for the remainder. Oil and natural 
gas powers 84% of all the world's energy--down from 86% in 2002--more 
than two decades ago. Oil accounts for 96% of all global 
transportation.
    While it is vital that we continue to increase the use of wind, 
solar, nuclear and hydropower in our energy portfolio, the fact of the 
matter is that energy demand across the economy is increasing. This 
means more oil and gas demand, along with demand for other forms of 
energy.
    Further, as we use more weather-dependent energy sources, our 
policies must ensure there is enough always-available power--from 
natural gas and nuclear--to keep the lights on when the wind or sun 
refuse to cooperate with our economic and electricity needs. We must 
foster policies that allow energy choice and maintain a role for all 
energy resources for the foreseeable future--as we keep making progress 
toward cleaner energy and a smaller environmental footprint.
    Since 2022, we have seen increased geopolitical conflicts, and 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has the greatest impact on energy prices. 
In the weeks since the Israel-Palestine conflict flared, we have seen 
numerous attacks on vital shipping lanes in the Middle East. Yet, aside 
from a few brief spikes, global oil prices have remained low--for a 
host of reasons related to global supply.
    Just a few years ago, this kind of conflict would have sent the 
price of oil soaring. However, America's position as the world's 
biggest producer of oil and natural gas is now insulating us from that 
kind of volatility. Higher domestic production is helping thwart price 
shocks, which protects our national security and our economic security, 
by alleviating financial stress on American families, businesses and 
industry.
    So why is this Administration attempting to stymie U.S. energy 
production?
    For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, where energy production has 
been proven to be less emissions-intensive than much of the remaining 
world's oil and gas basins, regulations both proposed and adopted by 
this Administration have effectively shut down prospects for future 
offshore oil and gas development in an area that accounts for 15% of 
total U.S. crude production. And, with the Gulf having an estimated 48 
billion barrels of oil and 142 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that 
has yet to be discovered, it is a huge long-term source of affordable, 
reliable and environmentally responsible energy.
    It is literally the source of decades of security to power modern 
American life.
    However, this Administration cheered for itself after issuing the 
fewest number of oil and gas lease sales ever recorded for exploration 
on the Outer Continental Shelf. This is a move that effectively 
signaled the closure of the Gulf of Mexico to energy development, 
without the introduction of any realistic plan to replace the Gulf's 
reliable energy supply. This year, 2024, will be the first year in 
which an offshore oil and gas lease sale has not taken place since 
1965.
    In the last half of 2023, the Biden Administration and the 
Department of the Interior finalized its 2024-2029 National OCS Oil and 
Gas Leasing Program. This 5-Year Plan has only three potential lease 
sales included. All three would potentially occur in the Gulf of 
Mexico, with zero sales in Alaska. The 5-Year Plan proposed by the 
Biden Administration has the least amount of lease sales in history, 
and, in fact, has an option that allows for zero lease sales. With the 
continuous price burdens on consumers, persistent inflation, the global 
market and geopolitical instability, this Administration continues to 
take shots at one of the most reliable basins in the world--the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    While these moves have been made in the name of environmental 
progress, the Administration knows better. In fact, the leasing 
restrictions come despite the Administration's acknowledgement in the 
5-year plan knowledge that more leasing in the Gulf and Alaska will 
actually decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
    So, why is the Administration limiting lease sales if holding them 
will actually decrease greenhouse gas emissions? The goal--as stated by 
the Administration--is to end oil and gas production in America.
    However, continuing this gap in leasing for new resources or 
failing to issue supplemental federal permits on public lands and 
waters would force the U.S. to import from other countries that do not 
have the same global gold standard environmental regulations the U.S. 
does.
    In another blow to offshore energy and overall commerce, last fall, 
activist groups used the sue-and-settle tactic with the federal 
government to impose harsh vessel restrictions on Lease Sale 261, which 
would have made it nearly impossible to transport oil and gas in the 
Gulf. This was done to preserve the Rice's whale, which, as of today, 
has not been scientifically proven to migrate into areas of the Gulf 
considered for leasing.
    Although the specific Lease Sale 261 restrictions were struck down 
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service introduced a rulemaking to designate 28,000 additional square 
miles across the Gulf of Mexico as additional critical habitat for the 
Rice's whale under the Endangered Species Act. Currently, critical 
habitat only exists for the Rice's whale's proven home in an area off 
the coast of Pensacola, Florida, where it has been sighted and proven 
to exist.
    Further, even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
has declined to impose the restrictions NMFS has proposed in this 
rulemaking, regardless of its outcome. Instead, NOAA vowed to introduce 
recovery plans and other nonregulatory management policies for the 
whale species.
    What is clear--and perhaps NOAA recognizes this--is that a proposed 
rule to greatly expand the whale's habitat would have a chilling impact 
on the entire U.S. economy and consumers, placing severe transit 
restrictions on all cargo vessels, cruise ships, commercial fishing 
boats, barges and equipment vessels, and ships carrying commercial 
goods, medicines, automobiles, and essential commodities. The economic 
ripple effect will be felt across the entire U.S. economy, hurting 
families and businesses already struggling with inflation.
    Nearly 69% of all goods traded by the U.S. are transported via 
waterways, predominantly by seafaring vessels. A significant number of 
these waterways connect to the Mississippi River, and thus rely on the 
Gulf of Mexico for transport. For example, 92% of our agricultural 
exports originate from the Mississippi River Basin. Ships transport 
over 41% of the total value of goods traded by the U.S., meaning that, 
if you quantify the value of all goods both exported and imported by 
the United States, almost half of it was transported by ship. Gulf of 
Mexico ports supply the lifeblood that fuels our economy, all of which 
would be affected by the Rice's whale proposed rulemaking.
    Texas ports rank first in U.S. maritime commerce, annually 
trafficking over 597.5 million tons of cargo to the rest of the 
country. Alabama's Port of Mobile is the fastest-growing container 
terminal in the United States over the past five years, with 54.9% 
volume growth since 2017. The strategic location of Mississippi's ports 
allows distribution of products to 75 percent of the U.S. market within 
24 hours.
    The end result of the Rice's whale rulemaking could remove up to 
25% of all U.S. waterway commerce. The increased costs and effects on 
supply chains and American consumers would be catastrophic.
Examples of Restrictive Energy Policies & Their Impacts

    Across the country, we are already seeing real-world examples of 
how restrictive energy policies are hurting families and businesses. A 
cursory assessment should call into question continued efforts to 
curtail energy development in the Gulf of Mexico.

    For example, what has happened in states where functioning energy 
systems have been banned or restricted by poor government policy?

     In California, ambitious plans to eliminate certain energy 
            sources have run head-first into the reality that we need 
            all the energy we can get. Energy prices are one of the 
            main economic factors making California's cost of living 
            increasingly untenable. The cost and reliability of energy 
            are cited as primary reasons more and more companies and 
            people are leaving the Golden State. Today, we see 
            Californians paying $1.60 more per gallon for gasoline than 
            the national average; as much as $0.30 more per kWH of 
            electricity than the national average--that's thousands of 
            dollars more a year. On top of this, California residents 
            are already paying 17% more for food and 10% more for goods 
            and services than the national average.

     Further, California's electricity is becoming increasingly 
            unreliable--making blackouts more likely and frequent--all 
            because California is not creating sufficient ``permanent 
            power'' (more commonly known as baseload power or 
            dispatchable power), like natural gas or nuclear as back-up 
            when wind and solar are not available. For example, in 
            2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom called for electric 
            vehicle charging limits in attempt to conserve power during 
            a heat wave. Governor Newsom also delayed closure of 
            several natural gas-fired power plants and called for 
            expedited generation to avoid blackouts, despite a state 
            law mandating 60% of electricity from renewables by 2030. 
            Due to high electricity demand and lack of adequate 
            infrastructure, California imports more electricity than 
            any other state. This has resulted in higher utility bills 
            for California families.

     In Washington State, a plan to lower gasoline consumption 
            immediately increased the state's pump prices to among the 
            highest in the nation. This means the average driver in 
            Washington is paying $1.00 more than the national average; 
            and $0.90 more than drivers in neighboring Idaho.

     In its Short-Term Assessment of Reliability, the New York 
            Independent System Operator (NYISO), the entity responsible 
            for managing New York's electricity grid, found that New 
            York City faces up to a 446 MW capacity shortfall in the 
            summer of 2025 largely due to a lack of new power capacity, 
            and a failure to add or expand pipeline infrastructure. For 
            context, that shortfall could mean that 335,000 New Yorkers 
            could be without power.

     In its Energy Transition in PJM Report, the regional 
            transmission organization responsible for serving all or 
            parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, 
            Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
            Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of 
            Columbia determined that ``it is possible that the current 
            pace of new entry would be insufficient to keep up with 
            expected retirements and demand growth by 2030.'' The 
            demand growth, estimated at 1.4% annually for the next 10 
            years--mainly due to electrification policies and the 
            addition of large energy consumers like data centers. As 
            FERC Commissioner Mark Christie noted in his May 2023 
            testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
            Committee, ``The problem generally is not the addition of 
            intermittent resources, primarily wind and solar, but the 
            far too rapid subtraction of dispatchable resources, 
            especially coal and gas.''

     It should be noted, the NYISO and PJM assessments were 
            done before offshore wind projects were canceled in New 
            York, New Jersey and other states.

    All this shows that restricting energy is starting to carry a high 
potential for political blowback, related directly to the actual cost 
increases these kinds of policies impose on voters, families and 
businesses. We're all still feeling the effects of inflation, and not a 
single voter is fooled when inflation reports exclude the energy and 
food prices they pay every day.
    We should all be suspicious of attempts to ban any form of energy 
without first investigating whether innovation and technology can 
improve its environmental footprint. So often, our nation has met its 
great challenges with innovation, technological leaps and practical, 
focused efforts.
Energy & Environment

    One of the biggest questions we must consider is whether the 
restrictions on energy sources made in the name of the environment are 
actually producing the desired result. Consumer Energy Alliance has 
long advocated for the need for policies that advance affordable, 
reliable and environmentally responsible energy. Data continues to 
prove that these three goals can be met simultaneously; and that the 
U.S. is already showing its global leadership.
    More broadly, from 2005 to 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 
declined by almost 19%, while worldwide GHG emissions increased by over 
18%.

    Further, the U.S. is aggressively tackling the need to reduce other 
harmful--potentially cancer-causing emissions. For example, from 1990 
to 2022 the U.S. reduced its emissions of critical pollutants.

      Carbon monoxide (CO)            decreased 69%

      Course particulate matter (PM10)   decreased 
            28%

      Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)    decreased 30%

      Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) decreased 52%

      Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)              decreased 93%

      Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)            decreased 66%

    Combined, our overall environment is far cleaner today than it has 
been in the past 10, 20, or 50 years. Much more remains to be done, and 
we all must ensure that environmental improvement gets the critical 
attention it deserves, and that technological innovation helps us find 
a path that does not harm families.
    Further, the Inflation Reduction Act solidified the financial 
mechanisms to advance Carbon Capture & Storage. This old technology now 
has a solid business footing that will be a catalyst to remove CO2 
emissions from industrial processes like steel and plastics 
manufacturing at scale, offering even more help toward meeting our 
shared environmental goals.
    Restrictive energy policies like those imposed recently on Gulf of 
Mexico oil and natural gas production are not advancing our 
environmental goals in a meaningful way. They are, however, hurting our 
economy, the wallets of families all across the nation, as well as 
increasing the probability of greater blackouts.
    The question is how do we increase the availability of affordable, 
reliable energy while improving our environment?
    The answer is simple. America must keep leading the way.
    We are producing record amounts of natural gas and oil and doing it 
more responsibly than any other country. While China gets cheers at 
global conferences for promising to start reducing emissions, America 
has produced the largest emissions reductions of any nation for two 
decades.
    Accept no substitute for American ingenuity, innovation and 
leadership. All three are crucial ingredients to our nation's long-
standing prosperity and unmatched standard of living.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I look 
forward to your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to David Holt, President, Consumer 
                            Energy Alliance

              Questions Submitted by Representative Graves

    Question 1. Bristow, a helicopter company that has serviced the 
offshore energy industry for over half a century, is one of the 
thousands of companies--large and small--that are dedicated to 
supporting American OCS energy production and energy security for the 
U.S. Bristow has over 3,000 employees, 230 aircraft and generates over 
$1.1 billion in revenue per year. What happens to companies like 
Bristow when there are too few lease sales or no future development 
plans for the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico? What happens to that economic 
activity generated by OCS production, the dollars sent to the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, or to the taxes paid by these companies to the 
Federal Treasury?

    Answer. The situation you describe is exactly what will happen to 
hundreds if not thousands of companies of all sizes that directly 
service the Gulf of Mexico's offshore oil and gas industry; as well as 
companies across the entire U.S. economy--regardless of their direct 
connection to offshore energy. While the impact of restricted leasing 
has yet to be felt because there is a multi-year lag between lease 
sales and activity in the Gulf, the direct impact will be lost jobs, 
lost wages, and lost economic opportunities. The money sent to the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and the taxes and royalties paid to the 
Treasury will dwindle, impacting federal and state treasuries and our 
ability to maintain our U.S. Parks and fund environmental programs. It 
is noteworthy and troubling that the source of those funds--OCS 
leasing--has not been mentioned in the last two Administration 
announcements touting the benefits those dollars provide to America's 
national parks.
    GOMESA states will also lose the conservation dollars they earn 
from Gulf leasing and production, which are distributed to communities 
for wetlands restoration, hurricane protection and many other critical 
conservation uses. Those are just some of the direct impacts.
    The indirect impacts are enormous because, as you correctly point 
out, there are many other industries and businesses that support the 
Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas industry, as well as businesses and 
families in every corner of our nation who rely on affordable, reliable 
and environmentally responsible energy. No American is immune from the 
harm shutting down U.S. offshore leasing will bring. These include 
farmers, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, insurers, truckers, 
distributors, electricians, machinists, laborers, and many others, 
which all generate jobs and incomes for millions of people. The self-
defeating nature of limiting or attempting to stop all OCS leasing is 
short-sighted, irresponsible and potentially catastrophic to our 
economy. In fact, we can all see the real-world damage the high 
gasoline, diesel and electricity prices have done to our economy since 
2021. Record inflation was caused in large part by higher diesel 
prices--which, as I testified, directly led to high costs for every 
single commodity Americans buy including food--the other major 
inflation driver besides energy costs. One of the most frustrating 
issues for most Americans over the past year has been our weekly trip 
to the grocery store where we all witness the steady increase in 
household items, much to our dismay. Restricting U.S. energy is the 
direct cause of this frustration--and current OCS policies are a 
continuation of those irresponsible policies.
    We all agree that continual environmental improvement is needed, 
but we also must maintain policies that ensure affordable and reliable 
energy. Failing to follow approach means families and business will 
suffer. We see this in states like New York and California, where 
myopic energy policies focusing on restricting energy choices has 
overwhelmed the system with higher prices, less reliable energy, more 
energy emergency days and, no evidence of actual environmental 
progress. As I stated in my testimony, the greatest impact is on those 
with the least: families on fixed incomes or in poverty. We have no 
excuse as the world's most advanced economy to begin thinking that more 
frequent blackouts are acceptable. They are not. Affordable, reliable 
and environmentally responsible energy is the only responsible 
environmental policy. Our nation is already showing that we can 
accomplish these three goals simultaneously. Those who continue to 
loudly protest in favor of restrictive energy policies, or who block 
pipelines and other energy infrastructure have been proven wrong by 
history and should no longer have a voice in the energy policy 
discussion. We cannot leave average Americans out in the literal cold 
because certain actors wish to damage industries by making a single 
priority more important than the greater health and welfare of all 
Americans.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher

    Question 1. You addressed inflation and gasoline costs in your 
written testimony, could you speak to how having an adequate amount of 
offshore lease sales enhance our energy resilience and help states like 
Idaho maintain more consistent pricing despite global market shifts in 
the future? How can this Administration predict that we won't need more 
lease sales before 2029?

    Answer. Adequate, regular and commercially viable offshore lease 
sales are an essential part of our national energy equation, in terms 
of adequate supply, national security and maintaining the United 
States' emergence as the world's largest oil and natural gas producer. 
Steadiness and a buffer in our ability to supply ourselves with 
adequate energy is the sine qua non of lower gasoline and diesel 
prices. While there are regional and state factors which affect the 
price at the pump, the biggest input is the cost of a barrel of oil. It 
is almost easy to forget how instability in the Middle East, like we 
are seeing now, used to translate directly to higher gasoline prices, 
fuel shortages and economic calamity. The price spikes we used to see 
have largely faded away precisely because of our own ability to respond 
to the market. The change happened so subtly that many of us almost did 
not notice. That is in part because the long lines Americans waited in 
to get overpriced gasoline during the OPEC oil embargoes of the 1970s 
lives only in history books or distant memory for many Americans.
    Yet the price spikes caused by global unrest from the usual oil-
producing hotspots have also largely faded away. The Russian invasion 
of Ukraine is a notable exception, because it prompted a sea-change in 
the global oil market's dynamics. As it has settled, so have prices. 
The Gulf provides 15% of America's crude oil, so it is a substantial 
asset that benefits all Americans. In short, we must ensure we keep all 
of our opportunities to respond to global price signals healthy, and 
that includes adequate, regular and commercially competitive offshore 
federal oil and gas lease sales. This is another reason why the 
Administration's recent LNG export restrictions escalate the problem, 
and demonstrate just how important energy policies are to Americans and 
our allies. When we were needed, America aided our friends with 
exported natural gas as a hedge against Russian aggression, and 
domestic prices did not suffer. We were also able to keep global prices 
lower than they would have otherwise been, because of our ability to 
meet our own needs and those of our allies. Without American offshore 
energy--and LNG exports--the world becomes a more volatile and less 
safe place.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. The witness disclosure form, as required and provided 
for in House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(5), is intended to give Congress and 
the public an accurate representation of the witness's potential 
conflicts of interest regarding the subject of the hearing.

    Question 4 of the disclosure form states: ``Please disclose whether 
you are a fiduciary (including, but not limited to, a director, 
officer, advisor, or resident agent) or any organization or entity that 
has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing.'' You answered 
``N/A'' to this question.

    However, as you indicated during the hearing, you are the Managing 
Partner at HBW Resources, LLC.

    1a) Please explain why you do not believe you are fiduciary for HBW 
Resources.

    According to the most recent lobbying reports filed by HBW 
Resources for the 4th quarter of 2023, HBW Resources was engaged as a 
lobbyist for the following clients:

     K&L Gates (registered to lobby the Department of the 
            Interior [DOI]) on ``oil and gas, offshore'')

     Consumer Energy Alliance (registered to lobby DOI, the 
            House, and the Senate on ``energy'')

     Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association 
            (registered to lobby DOI on ``oil and gas related policy 
            issues'')

     Western States and Tribal Nations (registered to lobby DOI 
            and the Senate on ``natural gas development on tribal lands 
            and in Western states.'')

    1b) At the time of the hearing, was HBW Resources registered as a 
lobbyist for these or any other clients with a financial stake in 
offshore oil and gas policies?

    1c) Please specify the issues, and the potential or existing 
regulations, policies or guidance for which HBW is lobbying on behalf 
of each of the entities identified in your answer to (b).

    1d) If HBW Resources was engaged by one or more clients to lobby on 
subjects related to this hearing, please explain how that does not 
constitute an interest in the subject matter of the hearing.

    1e) Would you like to amend your disclosure form?

    Answer. As discussed during the hearing, Mr. Holt was testifying as 
President of Consumer Energy Alliance. As such, he therefore had a 
fiduciary duty to the act in accordance with the organization's 
mission. That should have been self-evident to all who participated in 
the hearing. CEA's interest in the hearing pertained to the impacts 
offshore energy development may have on consumers, families and small 
businesses. CEA is a membership organization--registered as a 501(c)4--
with more than 370 member companies and more than 500,000 individual 
members all across the United States. CEA's members represent every 
sector of the U.S. economy--from farmers, ranchers, truck drivers, 
manufacturers, to laborers, small business and families. As mentioned 
during the hearing, almost 75% of CEA's members do not produce any form 
of energy--they only consume energy.

    As discussed during the hearing, CEA's board of directors (of which 
Mr. Holt is an ex officio member) and almost 75% of its member 
companies are consuming entities that do not produce energy; they are, 
however, very concerned about U.S. energy & environmental policy and 
the impact it has on their organizations and daily lives. Since this 
was the purpose and entity for which Mr. Holt was testifying, based on 
reasonable interpretations of the forms, there was no need to restate 
that here. HBW Resources, LLC, for which Mr. Holt is Managing Partner, 
is a registered lobbyist for CEA. Mr. Holt is not a registered 
lobbyist. To the extent CEA is concerned about flawed offshore energy 
policy, HBW personnel help represent those interests in Washington and 
in certain states at the direction of their client, CEA, and only act a 
representative of that client's interests. CEA's lobbying activity is 
well less than 10% of its overall business activities. If you very 
loosely interpret the House and Committee Rules descriptions of 
``advisor'' or ``Registered Agent'' to include those individuals who 
are registered lobbyists under Federal Law and House Rules, then we 
will amend our disclosure. That said, as stated, Mr. Holt is not, 
himself, a registered lobbyist. If, however, as more commonly 
interpreted, they are not included since that term has a distinct legal 
interpretation, which is why we interpreted the fiduciary 
responsibilities provisions not to apply, then no amendment is 
necessary.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. 
Mark Havens, the Chief Clerk for the Texas General Land Office 
based in Austin, Texas.
    Mr. Havens, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF MARK HAVENS, CHIEF CLERK, TEXAS GENERAL LAND 
                     OFFICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS

    Mr. Havens. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. And 
again, for the record, my name is Mark Havens. I am the Chief 
Clerk of the Texas General Land Office. I am here on behalf of 
our Texas Land Commissioner, Dr. Dawn Buckingham, and I really 
do appreciate this opportunity to discuss the importance of 
continued reasonable development, specifically as it relates to 
GOMESA for the nation as a whole, and for Texas specifically.
    I will cut some of the testimony. I don't want to echo all 
of the sentiments by the two gentlemen before me, but I do want 
to speak directly to the importance of GOMESA oil and gas 
production, again, for the nation and for Texas.
    It feels like so often today in policymaking we are faced 
with an either-or decision in so many key areas. But here I 
truly believe GOMESA is a win-win. As we have discussed, this 
is a well-established infrastructure, the oil and gas basin in 
the Gulf. It produces over 15 percent of the oil in the nation 
as a whole. And also, as these two have mentioned as well, it 
is some of the less carbon intensive of any oil and gas 
production anywhere.
    So, what we are seeing is either faced with the opportunity 
to drill at home in the Gulf, where it is less carbon 
intensive, securing our further energy independence, or relying 
on oil and gas produced in other areas that could actually harm 
the environment in a worse way. So, we are fully supportive of 
GOMESA production.
    And I would say, the General Land Office, we are somewhat 
uniquely qualified to talk about this because of what we do 
back home on a state basis. We are tasked with producing oil 
and gas from state-owned lands. We have over 13 million mineral 
acres that we manage at the General Land Office. That oil and 
gas production has been record-breaking the last few years. We 
have generated a little over $2 billion in royalty the last 
couple of years. And all of that funding goes to our K-12 
public education. So, we are well aware of the facts of 
generating oil and gas on state lands, and doing it reasonably, 
and doing it in the proper manner.
    The other thing that our office is uniquely tasked with is 
protecting probably our greatest environmental asset in the 
state, and that is the Texas coastline. Texas has over 367 
miles of Gulf shoreline, over 3,000 miles of a bay shoreline. 
All of that we are tasked with overseeing, protecting very 
sensitive wetlands, marshlands, all of the fragile ecosystems 
on the coast. And one of the biggest ways we have been able to 
do that is with GOMESA funding.
    If we look at GOMESA as a Federal funding source, it is the 
single largest funding source that we have in the state of 
Texas to fund these types of environmental projects that we 
have seen. So, when we saw the Executive Orders in the early, 
early signs from this Administration that we want to curb and 
even absolutely prohibit production in the Gulf, it was 
troubling for us for a number of ways, not the least of which 
was to be able to continue those types of projects.
    I did want to mention, just for example, a few of these 
that we are currently undertaking, and some of these that we 
have been able to do in the past.
    McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. It is almost a 
60,000-acre refuge, and it is the largest remaining freshwater 
marsh on the Texas coast. We have over $8 million currently of 
GOMESA funding into that to protect those marshlands, to 
protect the species that are there.
    We have done countless beach and dune renourishment 
projects throughout Texas. We are focused sincerely on 
hurricane protection. We are advocating often for coastal Texas 
larger levee systems, some hard construction to protect. But 
one of the front lines from coastal protection, storm surges, 
against all of that is these wetlands, these marshes, these 
dunes, these beaches. All of that is some of the front line of 
storm protection. And we are able to build those up primarily 
with GOMESA funding.
    Since the inception, Texas has received over $350 million 
in this funding. We would certainly like to see that keep 
going, continued in the future. We have numerous projects 
planned throughout that will help protect the Texas coast, as 
well as continuing reasonable oil and gas production in the 
Gulf.
    So, again, we are here to support anything and everything 
we can do to continue to bring this funding to Texas and to 
show some of the great strides we are making with it back home.
    I appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Havens follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Mark Havens, Chief Clerk, Texas General Land 
                                 Office

    Good morning, Chair and members. For the record, my name is Mark 
Havens, and I serve as the Chief Clerk of the Texas General Land Office 
(GLO). I am here on behalf of Texas Land Commissioner Dr. Dawn 
Buckingham, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance 
of the continued development of oil and gas production in the Gulf of 
Mexico. I'd like to focus on the numerous benefits provided by 
production under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) to the 
nation as a whole and to the state of Texas specifically.
    Robust oil and gas leasing in the Federal waters of the Gulf of 
Mexico serves at least two critical functions, as further described in 
this testimony: (i) increased, relatively low carbon intensive oil and 
gas production helps meet America's energy needs, reducing further 
reliance on foreign, dirtier oil (with corresponding benefits to US 
employment and tax revenues); and (ii) continued funding to the States 
through GOMESA revenue sharing pays for countless critical 
environmental improvements all along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. 
The GOMESA leasing and production program is literally a Federal/State 
win-win, but could and should be responsibly expanded for further 
American security and energy independence, as well as protection of 
vital Gulf of Mexico environmental assets.
    Too often today, we are faced with an ``either or'' decision in so 
many key areas of policy making. GOMESA, however, is a unique 
opportunity that provides us with a path to continued energy 
independence, as well as a funding source for numerous environmental 
projects that have a lasting positive impact on our coast. The Texas 
General Land Office is uniquely qualified to speak to this, as two of 
our core tenets are exhibited clearly in the GOMESA program. First, at 
the GLO we are tasked with managing over 13 million acres of state-
owned land for oil and gas development. This plays a vital role in 
funding K-12 public education in our state by contributing billions of 
dollars earned from mineral royalties to school funding. In addition, 
we are also tasked with protecting the most important environmental 
asset we have in the state: the Texas Coastline. GOMESA funding 
provides significant funding for numerous environmental projects 
including protecting environmentally sensitive wetlands, marshlands, 
and renourishing beaches.
    Fundamentally, offshore energy development is a strategic asset for 
America's security and prosperity, helping to safely provide energy for 
families and businesses across the nation. The benefits of offshore 
exploration, drilling, and production include energy for American 
consumers, jobs for U.S. workers, and billions of dollars in tax and 
royalty revenues for our nation's most important conservation programs.
    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gulf of 
Mexico offshore oil production accounts for 15% of total crude oil 
production and federal offshore natural gas production accounts for 5% 
of total U.S. dry gas production. Most importantly, a recent report by 
ICF found that the U.S. Gulf of Mexico produces some of the lowest 
carbon intensity barrels in the world. If we were to limit production 
in the Gulf of Mexico it would have to be replaced by higher carbon 
intensity barrels from elsewhere in the world.
    Unfortunately, despite the benefits to national security and to 
less carbon intensive production, one of the first things this 
administration did when President Biden took office was to make oil and 
gas development exceedingly more difficult by issuing Executive Order 
14008 on January 27, 2021.

    Sec. 208 of the Executive Order dealt with Oil and Natural Gas 
Development on Public Lands and in Offshore Waters, stating:

        To the extent consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of 
        the Interior shall pause new oil and natural gas leases on 
        public lands or in offshore waters pending completion of a 
        comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas 
        permitting and leasing practices in light of the Secretary of 
        the Interior's broad stewardship responsibilities over the 
        public lands and in offshore waters, including potential 
        climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas 
        activities on public lands or in offshore waters.

    However, the Administration's ``pausing'' was challenged in the 
courts, and per the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM's) website: 
``As a result of the order issued by the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit on Nov. 14, 2023, BOEM held Lease Sale 261 on 
Dec. 20 2023.

    Additionally, federal legislation (OCS Lands Act) requires BOEM to 
come up with 5-year plans for O&G lease sales. Following a lengthy 
notice/comment process akin to rulemaking, BOEM proposed, and the 
current administration's Secretary of the Interior approved, a plan for 
the planning period 2024-2029. Under this approved plan, however, only 
three (3) potential oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 
Program Area were proposed for the 5-year period covering 2024-2029, 
with only one sale each in 2025, 2027, and 2029.

    According to the Washington Post, since 1992, no five-year plan has 
had fewer than 11 lease sales; most have had 15 to 20, according to 
data from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    To put this into context, the previous BOEM lease sales have 
generated substantial revenue for the state of Texas. Texas began 
receiving GOMESA funds in 2009 through GOMESA Phase I. Those funds were 
limited in amount because Phase I only allowed for GOMESA funds to be 
received by the Gulf States for lease areas in section 181, which is a 
small section near the Eastern Planning Area of the Gulf.

    GOMESA Phase II began in 2017, which included sections for lease in 
the Central and Western Areas, and the Gulf States began receiving 
those GOMESA funds in 2018. GOMESA funds are deposited at the State 
Treasury each year in April and BOEM does not make the States aware of 
their annual GOMESA allocation until the time of those deposits--so we 
are expecting the next GOMESA funding to be deposited in April 2024, 
but we don't know the amount. From 2009 to 2023, the State of Texas has 
received over $350 million in GOMESA funds:
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The GLO's Coastal Resources Division uses GOMESA funding 
collaboratively with the other coastal grant and planning programs it 
administers so that coastal priorities can be implemented more 
efficiently and effectively. To do this, the GLO has integrated and 
streamlined procedures for the Coastal Management Plan program, GOMESA, 
and the Coastal Erosion Planning & Response Act (CEPRA) programs under 
one mission.

    The following large-scale projects have been selected for funding 
through the CMP, GOMESA and CEPRA competitive grant processes and are 
in various stages of contract execution:

    CEPRA 1658 McFaddin ($8,500,000) The GLO will use GOMESA funds for 
beach nourishment at McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge along a 17-mile 
stretch of shoreline.

    CEPRA 1675 Oyster Lake Habitat MR ($4,500,000) The GLO will use 
GOMESA funds to protect 13,000 feet of shoreline and 300 acres of 
wetland habitat in Brazoria County.

    CEPRA 1676 Gordy MR & SP ($4,380,000) The GLO will use GOMESA funds 
to construct a breakwater to protect 9,000 feet of shoreline along 
eastern Trinity Bay.

    CEPRA 1681 Anahuac NWR Living Shoreline ($15,450,000) The GLO will 
use GOMESA funds to construct 6.7 miles of breakwater along the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) shoreline.

    CEPRA 1692 Seawall to 13-Mile Road ($23,500,000) The GLO will use 
GOMESA funds to conduct beach nourishment from the end of the Seawall 
to 13-mile Road in Galveston County.

    CEPRA 1694 Jones Bay Oystercatcher ($1,150,000) The GLO will use 
GOMESA funds for restoration and enhancement of four Oystercatcher 
nesting island within Jones Bay.

    CEPRA 1699 Willow Lake SP at McFaddin ($2,150,000) The GLO will use 
GOMESA funds to construct 3.5 miles of living shoreline along the GIWW 
in McFaddin NWR and replace a water control structure.

    CEPRA 1712 Brazoria NWR Shoreline Protection ($14,000,000) The GLO 
will use GOMESA funds to construct breakwaters along the Gulf 
Intercoastal Waterway at the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge.

    CMP Copano Cove Ranch Acquisition ($2,613,120) This project will 
help acquire 972 acres of land for preservation.

    Bird Island Cove Shore Protection ($2,000,000)-construct breakwater 
and marsh restoration near Galveston Island State Park.

    Upper Coast Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Center ($3,500,000)-Construct 
a sea turtle hospital at Texas A&M University in Galveston.

    As you can see, this is just a small sampling of the work the GLO 
has done and continues to do to protect the Texas Coast with GOMESA 
funding received from oil and gas production in federal waters. If the 
current plan moves forward with the substantial decrease in leasing in 
the Gulf of Mexico, it will have a catastrophic impact on both our 
overall energy independence of our nation as well as our ability to 
protect the Texas coastline.
    In closing, I would recommend doing anything and everything we can 
to increase production within the GOMESA program. The GLO fully 
supports oil and gas production on our own state-owned land, and has 
developed a formal process for its lease sales. As I mentioned, the GLO 
manages over 13 million acres of state-owned land, a portion of which 
includes state waters of the Gulf of Mexico which extend 10.3 miles 
offshore and abut the same federal waters subject to GOMESA.
    However, we have a vastly different process when it comes to 
nominating tracts for inclusion in a bid sale. Any prospective lessee 
that desires to lease tracts from the state simply notifies the GLO of 
interest in a particular tract, at which point GLO staff evaluate the 
tract and ultimately determine whether it is in the best interest of 
the state to include the tract in a bid sale.
    Since a tract is only included in the GLO bid sale if industry has 
expressed an interest in leasing it, nearly all nominated tracts result 
in a lease award. By contrast, BOEM's nomination process includes at 
least nine steps and, by their own admission, the process from start to 
sale may take two or more years.
    At the December 2023 BOEM bid sale, only 2.4% of the acreage 
offered received bids. A streamlined federal process with more industry 
input would surely yield better results to both the federal government 
and, through GOMESA, the State of Texas.
    Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you may 
have for me.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Havens, Chief Clerk, Texas 
                          General Land Office

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher

    Question 1. Mr. Havens, in your written testimony you stated that 
the substantial decrease in leasing in the Gulf of Mexico will have a 
catastrophic impact on both our energy independence and ability to 
protect the Texas coastline. Could you please expand on the importance 
of protecting the coastline?

    Answer. The economic importance of the Texas coast and its 
ecosystems cannot be understated. The Texas coast is home to a thriving 
coastal economy built on waterborne commerce, energy and chemical 
industries, military, commercial and recreational fishing, marine 
transportation, ship building, and tourism and ecotourism sectors. The 
Texas coastal region's annual wages exceeded $25.6 billion, and the 
ports include three of the top five fastest growing ports in the nation 
by export revenue from 2010 to 2020. The ports system provides, 
collectively, $450 billion in economic value to the state on an annual 
basis. Texas is the largest energy producing state in the nation, 
accounted for 43% of the nation's crude oil production and 26% of its 
marketed natural gas production in 2020. These are just some of the 
metrics that emphasize the critical nature of coastal ecosystem 
restoration and resiliency to the state's economic backbone and allow 
it to continue to provide the resources, benefits, and protections 
Texans and the nation need.

    The Texas coastal landscape is comprised of a multitude of natural 
systems and provides the foundation for a range of coastal 
environments, including the major bay systems, barrier islands, beaches 
and dunes, wetlands, coastal uplands, oyster reefs, and rookery 
islands. These Texas coastal environments face significant pressures 
related to various anthropogenic stressors, as well as relative sea 
level rise (RSLR) and storm surge. Conserving and restoring these 
ecosystems will become even more critical in the future for the state's 
economy as these systems provide the first line of defense against 
storms and catastrophic loss of public and private infrastructure. 
GOMESA funds are the largest source of funding available to the State 
of Texas for ecosystem restoration and protection and are used to 
tackle the most serious threats to our coast's resiliency.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 __
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Ms. 
Erandi Trevino, and she is Organizer for Public Citizen, and is 
based in Houston, Texas.
    Ms. Trevino, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF ERANDI TREVINO, ORGANIZER, PUBLIC CITIZEN, 
                         HOUSTON, TEXAS

    Ms. Trevino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Committee 
members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My 
name is Erandi Trevino, and I am a community organizer with 
Public Citizen, based in Houston, Texas.
    Public Citizen is a national non-profit organization with 
over half a million members and supporters. I am also a member 
of the Healthy Port Communities Coalition, a group of 
organizations, including Public Citizen, working to improve the 
quality of life of communities near the Houston Ship Channel 
and the quality of essential resources for all.
    Houston is known worldwide as an energy powerhouse. It has 
one of the largest ports in the United States and is home to 
the largest petrochemical industrial complex in the country. 
The same industrial complex is also home to multiple 
communities known as sacrifice zones. Sacrifice zones are 
places exposed to concentrated levels of pollutants and 
hazardous materials that cause adverse health effects. We call 
them this because the health of people in these communities are 
sacrificed for corporate profit.
    When I was 7, my mother and younger sister and I emigrated 
from northern Mexico to the East End, a neighborhood near the 
Houston Ship Channel. It is a common landing spot for many 
immigrants. Yet, sadly, children who grow up within 2 miles of 
the Houston Ship Channel are 56 percent more likely to be 
diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia compared to children 
10 miles or more away.
    Today, my family and I still live, work, and go to school 
in sacrifice zones. We have learned the hard way that, even 
when we avoid something as serious as cancer, living in a 
sacrifice zone means that our health is threatened in other 
ways. Our neighbors include a parking lot of 18 wheelers with 
diesel engines that idle around the clock, a demolition 
company, a crate manufacturer, and several factories. We also 
live close to major highways and an expanding international 
airport.
    In short, we confront the cumulative effects of pollution 
that surround us.
    The results from living in a sacrifice zone is painfully 
reflected in my life and in the life of my family, in our 
neighbors who have been diagnosed with cancer or other chronic 
illnesses. It is also quantified in the EPA's EJ screen, which 
shows people in my neighborhood have air toxic cancer risk in 
the nation's 94th percentile. My mother and I both suffer from 
a series of health conditions that lead to pain, inflammation, 
and numerous other symptoms. To function semi-normally, I take 
eight pills a day, control my diet, my sleep, and my activities 
as much as I can.
    But the conditions outside my door, which I cannot control, 
can make an average day unbearable, regardless of how careful I 
am inside my home. It is what happens when industrial leaks, 
fires, and diesel-choked areas are commonplace and so close. An 
average week for my mom and I includes us taking turns taking 
care of each other because we lose at least a few days every 
week to pain, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, nausea, 
inflammation, and headaches.
    One thing is for sure: my symptoms are directly linked to 
the industrial activity nearby and pose the biggest challenge 
to my life.
    In my years of community organizing, I have met more and 
more people who were previously healthy, yet have begun to feel 
the effects of living close to the oil and gas industry. For 
many it is recurring congestion, headaches, stomach aches, 
nausea, or skin reactions.
    The Gulf of Mexico is the largest offshore fossil fuel 
production basin in the United States. Decisions on expanding 
production should rely on current operations and the impact on 
the health of communities and their resources. Economic growth 
projections should also account for the instability and 
cyclical nature of the energy sector, the tax breaks enjoyed by 
the industry, the inherent danger to workers, the permanent 
impacts on our environment, and most importantly to me and my 
community, the damage borne by the people living and working 
nearby.
    Resulting medical expenses fall on frontline communities, 
many of whom already have higher medical costs than normal, who 
have low income, and are in need of adequate access to health 
care.
    We can only talk about benefits by also talking about the 
risks. When spills occur, they can bring catastrophic harm to 
marine life and devastating losses to local businesses, 
including our approximately $35 billion commercial fishing and 
$60 billion ocean and coastal tourism and recreational 
industries.
    In the end, despite all our sacrifices, my neighborhood 
still has unreliable electricity grid. People periodically face 
rolling blackouts. We have high property taxes and utility 
costs that grow reliably every single year. People are left to 
make calculations on whether to stay, go, play outside, come 
back in, move, or sell. And it does not seem that more drilling 
will help alleviate those pressures. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Trevino follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Ms. Erandi M Trevino, Houston Organizer, Public 
          Citizen, and the Healthy Port Communities Coalition

    Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and 
committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. 
My name is Erandi Trevino, and I am a community organizer with Public 
Citizen, based in Houston, Texas. Public Citizen is a national non-
profit organization with over 500,000 members and supporters. For more 
than 50 years, we have advocated for the public interest with 
considerable success through lobbying, litigation, administrative 
advocacy, research, and public education on a broad range of issues.
    I am a member of the Healthy Port Communities Coalition, a group of 
organizations--including Public Citizen--working to improve the quality 
of life of communities near the Houston Ship Channel and the quality of 
essential resources for all.
    Houston is known worldwide as an energy powerhouse. It has one of 
the largest ports in the U.S. and is home to the largest petrochemical 
industrial complex in the country.
    The same industrial complex, a powerful and revered economic 
engine, is also home to multiple communities referred to as sacrifice 
zones.
    Sacrifice zones are places exposed to concentrated levels of 
pollutants and hazardous materials that cause adverse health effects. 
We call them this because the health of people in these communities is 
sacrificed for corporate profits.
    People living in sacrifice zones are far more likely to develop 
chronic health conditions such as asthma and other respiratory 
diseases, and cancer, to name just a few. This is why the rates of 
cancer and illness in sacrifice zones are disproportionately elevated 
and they are some of the most environmentally vulnerable. Yet, it 
impacts many Americans. Roughly a third of the United States population 
lives with air that does not meet acceptable federal standards.
    When I was 7, my mother, younger sister, and I emigrated from 
northern Mexico to the East End, a neighborhood next to the Houston 
Ship Channel. This is a common landing spot for many immigrants. Sadly, 
children who grow up within two miles of the Houston Ship Channel are 
56% more likely to be diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia, 
compared to children 10 or more miles away.
    Today, my family and I still live, work, and go to school in 
sacrifice zones. We have learned the hard way that even when we avoid 
something as serious as cancer, living in a sacrifice zone means that 
our health is threatened in other ways. Our neighbors include a parking 
lot for 18-wheelers with diesel engines that idle around-the-clock, a 
demolition company, a crate manufacturer, and several factories. We 
also live close to major highways and an expanding international 
airport. In short, we confront the effects of cumulative sources of 
pollution that surround us.
    The results from living in a sacrifice zone is painfully reflected 
in my life, in the life of my family, and in our neighbors who have 
been diagnosed with cancer or other chronic illness. It is also 
quantified in the EPAs EJ Screen, which shows people in my neighborhood 
have air toxics Cancer risk in the nation's 94th percentile.
    My mother and I both suffer from a series of health conditions that 
lead to pain, inflammation, and numerous other symptoms. To function 
semi-normally, I take 8 pills a day, control my diet, my sleep, and my 
activities as much as I can. But the conditions outside my door, which 
I cannot control, can make an average day unbearable regardless of how 
careful I am inside my home. It is what happens when industrial leaks, 
fires, and diesel-choked areas are commonplace and so close to home.
    An average week for my mom and I includes us taking turns caring 
for each other, because we lose at least a few days every week to pain, 
fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, nausea, inflammation, and headaches. One 
thing is for sure: my symptoms are directly linked to the industrial 
activity nearby and pose the biggest challenge in my life.
    In my years of community organizing, I have met more and more 
people who were healthy and have begun to feel the effects of living 
close to the oil and gas industry. For many, it is recurring 
congestion, headaches, stomach aches, nausea, or skin reactions.
    The Gulf of Mexico is the largest offshore fossil fuel production 
basin in the United States. Decisions on expanding production in the 
region should rely on assessing current operations and the impact on 
the health of communities and their resources.
    The fossil fuel industry remains one of the biggest employers in 
Texas. Oil extraction does provide economic benefits to our economy. 
However, expectations for growth should be tempered by the entire 
circumstances created by expanded extraction.
    Economic growth projections should account for the instability and 
cyclical nature of the energy sector, the tax breaks enjoyed by the 
industry, the inherent danger to workers, the permanent impacts on our 
environment, and most important to me and my community, the damage 
borne by the people living and working nearby. Resulting medical 
expenses fall on frontline communities. Many communities that will see 
the highest medical costs related to the energy sector are also low-
income and need adequate access to healthcare.
    One can only talk about benefits by also talking about risks. New 
open offshore areas risk permanent damage to our oceans and beaches, 
and prolongs dependency on oil. When oil spills occur, they can bring 
catastrophic harm to marine life and devastating losses to local 
businesses. Even routine exploration and drilling activities bring harm 
to many marine species.
    Deepwater Horizon was the most high-profile Gulf oil spill of the 
last decade, but smaller spills happen often. Oil spills result in 
devastating economic losses upon coastal communities and spills take a 
severe toll on coastal economies, including our approximately $35 
billion commercial fishing and $60 billion ocean and coastal tourism 
and recreation industries. The damage and clean-up costs following the 
Exxon Valdez spill were so extensive that Exxon paid out more than one 
billion dollars to the federal and state governments for damages and 
clean-up costs--and still owes fishermen, Alaska Natives, business 
owners, and others a billion dollars.
    Private industry development of offshore resources does little to 
support the average Texan, especially because projected growth does not 
consider the costs to communities. In Texas, it is not unusual for oil 
and gas operations to qualify for exemptions from various types of 
taxes. This includes school district property taxes which have 
skyrocketed for the average Texas homeowner in the last few years. 
Texas homeowners are struggling with inflation while industry is often 
granted breaks.
    In the end, despite all our sacrifices, my neighborhood still has 
an unreliable electricity grid, and people periodically face rolling 
black outs. We have high property taxes, and utility costs that grow 
reliably every year. People are left to make calculations on whether to 
stay, go, play outside, come back in, move, sell. It does not seem that 
more drilling will alleviate these pressures.
    The US remains the largest oil producer in the world. Any 
additional extraction is not intended to fulfill a domestic need for 
oil, but rather much of it would be an export destined for China. While 
it would not benefit the average consumer, it will tack on additional 
weight on communities already bearing more than their fair share.
    There are many coastal communities whose health is suffering in the 
name of profit. At some point, the sacrifice zones that have been 
toughened by adversity will buckle under the cumulative effects of a 
heavily industrial region.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Erandi M Trevino, Houston 
                      Organizer and Public Citizen

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. Several times during the hearing, we heard arguments 
from Committee Republicans that the oil and gas industry in Houston is 
the cleanest and safest in the world. How do you respond to these 
arguments?

    Answer. Houston's oil and gas industry might have the capacity to 
be the cleanest in the world, yet it has yet to achieve this feat. The 
industry in Houston is notorious for violating EPA standards due to a 
lack of enforcement in the state. These violations can be leaks, fires, 
and excessive emissions. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ), the agency entrusted to enforce EPA standards, is often called 
a ``reluctant regulator'' because it refuses to do its designated job. 
The agency's mission is to ``protect our state's public health and 
natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development.'' 
Further proving that economic development is the priority. Maximizing 
profits above all else is the main goal of the state government and the 
oil and gas industry. Despite inherent dangers, even when the 
technology is available to create safer operations, safer technology is 
not chosen above more lucrative financial gains. This is evident in 
communities near the Houston Ship Channel that rank among the most 
environmentally vulnerable communities in the country. One neighborhood 
in particular, Pleasantville, is more vulnerable than 99.9% of the US.

    Question 2. During the hearing, we heard arguments about how 
minority communities benefit from oil and gas industry jobs, but those 
industry jobs are often unsafe and unstable. Can you tell us more about 
the conditions oil and gas workers face in your community?

    Answer. Latinos do make up most of oil and gas jobs. However, these 
jobs all come with risks. Workers face the risk of explosions and 
fires, along with exposure to concentrated levels of pollutants, which 
can later lead to a series of health effects, including respiratory 
issues, cancer, and even death. In my region, the industrial culture 
disregards safety and health. Workers are hard-hit by the effects of 
cutting corners and breaking the law.

    Question 3. During the hearing, Representatives Graves commented 
that life expectancy in the United States is 8.3 years longer than in 
Mexico. How do you respond to that comment?

    Answer. The life expectancy near the Houston Ship Channel is 20 
years lower than the national average. That means that our average life 
expectancy in my community is around 12 years less than that in Mexico. 
This life expectancy means many people in my community will never reach 
retirement age.

    Question 4. Is there anything else you would like to respond to 
from the hearing or share with the Committee?

    Answer. I hope that the committee considers the full effects of the 
oil and gas industry on our country. My community and communities like 
mine are not victims. We are strong, resilient, and fighting to be a 
part of a just energy transition. We are not complaining. Instead, as 
those in sacrifice zones and on the frontlines, we hope to be a 
cautionary tale and the first line of defense. Our communities are a 
glimpse into a future we can and should avoid. The industry tends to 
expand and grow. This means that what is at my front door today might 
be at someone else's tomorrow. We can no longer allow industry to 
trample individual rights.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Lastly, Dr. Walter 
Cruickshank, who is Deputy Director for the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management with the Department of the Interior, 
stationed right here in Washington, DC.
    Deputy Director Cruickshank, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF WALTER CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 
   OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Cruickshank. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-
Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear 
before you today to discuss the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management's recent activities to responsibly manage the energy 
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a manner that meets 
the country's energy needs while minimizing impacts to the 
environment. Today, I will briefly discuss both BOEM's oil and 
gas and offshore wind programs.
    The OCS Lands Act requires BOEM to prepare an oil and gas 
leasing program that includes a proposed schedule of lease 
sales for the 5-year period following approval of the program. 
As specified in Section 18 of that Act, preparation and 
approval of the National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program are 
based on the Secretary of the Interior balancing specific 
factors to select the size, timing, and location of lease sales 
that, among other things, consider the relative needs of the 
regional and national energy markets, as well as impact of oil 
and gas exploration and development on the marine, coastal, and 
human environments.
    This past December, Secretary Haaland approved the 2024 to 
2029 National OCS Program. The new program includes three 
potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. These sales were 
chosen because they have the greatest resource potential and 
net benefits with the least potentially significant impacts and 
cost to society. The Secretary believes that this proposed 
schedule will best meet national energy needs for the next 5 
years under existing laws and policies.
    The lease sales included in the National OCS Program would 
enable the Department to continue to issue offshore wind leases 
in compliance with provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act 
that prohibit BOEM from issuing new offshore wind leases unless 
it is offered at least 60 million acres of the OCS for oil and 
gas leasing in the previous year.
    Last October, BOEM published a call for information and 
nominations for the potential Gulf of Mexico lease sales 
included in the 2024 to 2029 program. Simultaneously, we 
published a notice of intent to prepare a Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the potential impacts 
of a representative Gulf lease sale. Together, these actions 
initiated implementation of the 2024 to 2029 National OCS 
Program.
    Offshore oil and gas resources remain an important 
component of our domestic energy portfolio, and indeed offshore 
production is at historically high levels. BOEM has held 11 
lease sales since the start of the 2017 to 2022 OCS Program, 
generating approximately $1.8 billion in bonus bids. As 
directed by the Inflation Reduction Act, BOEM worked 
expeditiously to hold three lease sales, as required by that 
Act. Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258 occurred in December 2022, 
resulting in a single bid of $64,000. In 2023, BOEM held two 
lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, the most recent of which was 
Lease Sale 261, held just last month, which generated over $382 
million in high bids. As of December 1, prior to Lease Sale 
261, there were a total of 12.1 million acres of the OCS under 
lease, 76 percent of which were belonging to non-producing 
leases. Overall, we expect GOMESA revenue sharing to be fully 
funded for the foreseeable future.
    Turning to offshore wind, the Administration has set bold 
goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy capacity 
by 2030, and 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy 
capacity by 2035. In support of these goals, the Department has 
approved the nation's first six commercial-scale offshore wind 
projects, with two of those projects now producing power. BOEM 
is currently reviewing an additional 12 offshore wind project 
plans.
    In addition, in the last 2 years, BOEM has held four 
offshore wind lease auctions totaling almost $5.5 billion in 
high bids, and has taken steps to identify additional wind 
energy areas for potential leasing off the Atlantic, Pacific, 
and Gulf of Mexico coasts.
    We are taking a thoughtful, all-of-government approach to 
collaborating on issues such as ocean co-use and efficient 
permitting to build a robust offshore wind industry that 
benefits communities and successfully co-exists with other 
ocean uses.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to 
discuss BOEM's efforts to responsibly manage the nation's 
offshore energy resources. These programs are essential for the 
Administration's continued commitment to ensure a clean and 
secure energy future, one that is sustainable and benefits all 
Americans. I look forward to answering any questions the 
Committee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Cruickshank follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Dr. Walter D. Cruickshank, Deputy Director, 
   Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez and members of the 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM's) recent activities to 
responsibly manage energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS) in a manner that meets the country's energy needs while 
minimizing impacts to the environment. My name is Walter Cruickshank, 
and I am the Deputy Director of BOEM, a bureau within the Department of 
the Interior.
    BOEM's mission is to manage development of U.S. Outer Continental 
Shelf energy, mineral, and geological resources in an environmentally 
and economically responsible way.
National OCS Program

    The OCS Lands Act (OCSLA) requires BOEM to prepare and periodically 
revise an oil and gas leasing program that includes a proposed schedule 
of oil and gas lease sales that will best meet national energy needs 
for the five-year period following approval or reapproval of the 
program. This is referred to as the National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing 
Program (National OCS Program). As specified by Section 18 of OCSLA, 
preparation and approval of a National OCS Program is based on the 
Secretary of the Interior balancing specific requirements and factors 
and selecting the size, timing, and location of OCS lease sales that--
among other things--considers the relative needs of regional and 
national energy markets as well as the impact of oil and gas 
exploration on the marine, coastal, and human environments.
    This past December, the Secretary of the Interior approved the 
2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 
which had been published as the Proposed Final Program on September 29, 
2023. The new National OCS Program includes three potential OCS oil and 
gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Program Area, scheduled for 
2025, 2027, and 2029. The size, timing, and location of these three 
potential lease sales were chosen because they have the greatest 
resource potential and net benefits with the least potentially 
significant impacts and costs to society. The Secretary believes that 
this proposed schedule will best meet national energy needs for the 
next five years under existing laws and policies.
    The lease sales described in the National OCS Program, if 
conducted, would enable the Department to continue to issue offshore 
wind leases in compliance with the provisions of the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) that prohibit BOEM from issuing new offshore wind 
leases unless BOEM has offered at least 60 million acres for oil and 
gas leasing on the OCS in the previous year. New offshore wind leasing 
will ensure continued progress towards the Biden-Harris 
administration's goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy 
capacity by 2030 and 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy 
capacity by 2035.
    The area considered for oil and gas leasing has been narrowed to 
the GOM OCS, where there is existing production and infrastructure. 
This area includes the portions of the Western, Central, and Eastern 
GOM planning areas not currently under Presidential withdrawal.
    Last October, BOEM published a Call for Information and Nominations 
in the Federal Register for the potential GOM oil and gas lease sales 
included in the 2024-2029 National OCS Program. Simultaneously, BOEM 
also published a Notice of Intent to prepare a programmatic 
environmental impact statement to analyze the potential impacts of a 
representative lease sale in the GOM during the 2024-2029 National OCS 
Program, as well as ongoing and potential associated site- and 
activity-specific oil- and gas-related approvals.
    Collectively, these actions will allow BOEM to implement the new 
National OCS Program.
Recent Leasing Activities

    U.S. offshore oil and gas resources remain an important component 
of our domestic energy portfolio and contribute to the Nation's 
economic output. BOEM has held 11 lease sales since the start of the 
2017-2022 Program, generating approximately $1.8 billion in bonus bids. 
As directed by the IRA, BOEM worked expeditiously to hold Lease Sales 
258, 259, and 261. BOEM held Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258 on December 30, 
2022, resulting in one bid of $63,983 and the issuance of one lease. 
BOEM held Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 259 on March 29, 2023, which 
generated $263.8 million in high bids for 313 tracts and resulted in 
issuance of 295 leases covering 1.57 million acres. On December 20, 
2023, BOEM held Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 261, which generated 
$382,168,507 in high bids for 311 tracts covering 1.7 million acres. 
BOEM is currently evaluating bids received from Lease Sale 261 and 
anticipates issuing leases in the coming months. As of December 1, 
2023--prior to Lease Sale 261--there were a total of 12.1 million acres 
of the OCS under lease, with more than 9.2 million acres of that 
acreage (76 percent) belonging to non-producing leases.
Offshore Wind

    As stated earlier, this Administration has set bold goals to 
harness the significant offshore wind resources we have here in the 
U.S. and deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030 
and 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy capacity by 2035.
    In support of these goals, the Interior Department has approved the 
Nation's first six commercial scale offshore wind projects, with two of 
those projects (Vineyard Wind 1 and South Fork) now producing power. 
BOEM is currently reviewing an additional 12 offshore wind project 
plans. In addition, BOEM has held four offshore wind lease auctions 
totaling almost $5.5 billion in high bids--including a record-breaking 
sale in the New York Bight and the first-ever sales offshore the 
Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts--and has taken steps to identify 
additional Wind Energy Areas for potential leasing offshore Oregon and 
in the Gulf of Maine, Central Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. The 
Department has also evolved its approach to responsible offshore wind 
energy development by encouraging union-built projects and supporting a 
domestic supply chain, while continuing meaningful engagement with 
Tribal Nations, underserved communities, fishing communities, and other 
ocean users and stakeholders.
    These accomplishments represent significant milestones towards 
achieving this Administration's goal of creating good paying jobs and 
building a clean energy economy that will combat the climate crisis 
while supporting and protecting American communities. We are taking a 
thoughtful, all-of-government approach to collaborating on issues such 
as ocean co-use and efficient permitting to build a robust offshore 
wind industry that benefits communities and co-exists harmoniously with 
other ocean uses. We will continue to do this by working 
collaboratively with Tribal Nations, States, other federal agencies, 
industry, labor unions, underserved communities, ocean users, and 
others to ensure that any future offshore energy development is done 
safely and responsibly and relies on the best available science and 
Indigenous knowledge.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 
BOEM's efforts to responsibly manage our nation's energy resources on 
the OCS to meet the Nation's energy needs while minimizing impacts to 
the ocean, ocean users, and marine life. BOEM's programs are essential 
for the Administration's continued commitment to ensuring a clean and 
secure energy future--one that is sustainable and benefits all 
Americans. I look forward to answering any questions that this 
Committee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Dr. Cruickshank, and I want to 
thank all the witnesses for their testimony. The Chair will now 
recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions, and I am going to 
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Cruickshank, global oil demand is expected to rise 0.8 
percent per year until 2030, and remaining around 102 million 
barrels per day for the following two decades, according to 
data from IEA. To say the least, global oil demand will remain 
strong for a long time. However, under BOEM's 5-year plan, we 
will have zero lease sales in 2024, 2026, and 2028.
    How will these current and future demand increases be met 
offshore, based on your finalized plan?
    And how does having zero offshore oil and gas lease sales 
this year help meet this increasing demand, based on the steady 
demand projections for the next 25 years?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Chairman Stauber. I would note 
that current production from the OCS is at near-record highs. 
2022, the last year for full data, was the third-highest 
production level ever on the Outer Continental Shelf, and we 
are seeing similar numbers for 2023, with additional production 
coming on this year, next year, the year after. So, there are 
plenty of existing leases out there that are being developed 
and continue to be invested in that will continue to support 
domestic demand for oil.
    As far as future lease sales, I believe that the industry 
is sophisticated. They see their three sales on the schedule, 
they know when they are going to occur, and they will plan 
accordingly in adjusting their planning cycles, their budget 
cycles, so that they can successfully participate in those 
sales if they choose to.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you. Thanks to President Biden's so-
called Inflation Reduction Act, offshore wind sales are now 
tied to offshore oil and gas lease sales. If there is not a 
robust oil and gas program, there cannot be a robust wind 
program. While BOEM will not hold any offshore oil and gas 
leases, for the first time, zero leases will occur since 1958, 
as it has been said. Can you commit to BOEM holding lease sales 
in 2025?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Under the OCS Lands Act, we are required 
to run a separate planning process for each individual lease 
sale included in the program, and the Secretary of the Interior 
at the time of that sale will make the decision.
    Mr. Stauber. Dr. Cruickshank, just with the limited time, 
can you commit to BOEM holding lease sales in 2025?
    Dr. Cruickshank. That will be a decision of the Secretary 
of the Interior in 2025 as to whether or not to hold that sale.
    Mr. Stauber. So, at this moment you can't commit to that.
    Dr. Cruickshank. We will follow the process and get that 
information to the Secretary.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Has BOEM begun the NEPA process for the 
proposed 2025 lease sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, we have.
    Mr. Stauber. And when did that begin?
    Dr. Cruickshank. That began in October, when we published 
the notice of intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement.
    Mr. Stauber. When Director Klein was before this 
Subcommittee on October 18, she stated that the NEPA process 
had already begun at the time. However, BOEM published its 
notice of intent to prepare the Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement, the PEIS, in the Federal Register on October 
2. The comment period for the notice of intent closed on 
November 1. BOEM then had to review the comments and actually 
begin to prepare the PEIS, which is actually the beginning of 
the NEPA process in earnest.
    Director Klein further stated, and I quote, ``The NEPA 
process to evaluate potential impacts of proposed lease sales 
in the 5-year plan generally takes anywhere from 16 to 18 
months, possibly 2 years.'' Do you agree with this 
characterization?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, I would note that we view the NEPA 
process that starts that count as 16 to 24 months that actually 
starts with the notice of intent, where we get a lot of public 
input.
    Mr. Stauber. So, should President Biden be re-elected this 
year, this Administration will hold the keys as to whether or 
not the NEPA process is completed and, ultimately, if a lease 
sale will actually be held in 2025.
    Will you commit to doing everything in your power to ensure 
the NEPA process is completed in a timely manner?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, we will.
    Mr. Stauber. With the potential of the NEPA process taking 
2 full years, and the process being kicked off in earnest in 
the beginning of November 2023, it is plausible that the NEPA 
process is not completed until November 2025. That leaves just 
2 months left in 2025 to conduct a lease sale.
    I implore you, Dr. Cruickshank, to ensure that BOEM 
conducts the NEPA process in a transparent manner to ensure 
that a lease sale is held in 2025, whether that be under the 
Biden administration or a different administration. But I will 
be honest. After seeing this Administration take steps at every 
turn to obstruct and stop oil and gas development, stop mining 
development, and virtually all forms of traditional energy 
production, I worry that this process will be unnecessarily 
dragged out simply to block a lease sale or, at the very least, 
push it as far out as possible. I hope that I am proven wrong.
    I will now allow for 5 minutes of questioning from our 
Ranking Member.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chairman Stauber. I have been 
going through some of the documents prepared for this hearing, 
and I just had a clarifying question here.
    Mr. Holt, on your disclosure form for the hearing you have 
submitted, under the question of whether you are a fiduciary of 
any organization or entity that has an interest in the subject 
matter of the hearing, you have answered no to that. Correct?
    Mr. Holt. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Just to clarify, you are the President 
of the Consumer Energy Alliance. You also are the Managing 
Partner of HBW Resources, correct?
    Mr. Holt. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Which is a registered lobbying firm for 
CEA.
    Mr. Holt. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You have no fiduciary responsibility in 
either of those organizations?
    Mr. Holt. I have a fiduciary responsibility in both those 
organizations. CEA is an independent organization run by a 
board of directors that is contracted to HBW to help manage 
CEA.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, you do not have a fiduciary 
responsibility in either of those organizations.
    Mr. Holt. In terms of being responsible for the 
organizations? Yes, I do have a fiduciary duty.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, you do have a fiduciary 
responsibility.
    Now, in terms of interest in the hearing, CEA has 
membership that includes the American Petroleum Institute, 
Chevron, Arena Energy, ExxonMobil, National Ocean Industries 
Association, Shell, et cetera.
    Mr. Holt. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Would you like to correct your 
disclosure form?
    Mr. Holt. No, I am not sure I understand the nature of the 
question. Consumer Energy Alliance is a 501(c)(4) that is a 
membership-driven organization. It has approximately 380 member 
companies that are members of CEA. All are listed on our 
website. All our tax forms are listed on the website. So, the 
annual revenues of CEA are public and transparent. The board of 
directors for CEA runs the organization. The board of directors 
has hired HBW to help manage that organization.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And HBW receives, from what I am seeing 
in the IRS filing, 74 percent of CEA's revenue went to HBW. You 
are the President of CEA and you are the managing partner of 
HBW.
    Mr. Holt. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And CEA's revenue comes from?
    Mr. Holt. The member companies.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Which includes the American Petroleum 
Institute.
    Mr. Holt. And 380 other member companies.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Including Shell, ExxonMobil, and 
Occidental Petroleum.
    Mr. Holt. But I would add to this, for the record here, 70, 
75 percent of CEA's membership does not produce a molecule of 
energy at all. They are consumers representing farmers, 
manufacturers, small businesses, and families all over the 
country.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK, I see.
    The other thing I would like to follow up on as well is HBW 
has also registered that they lobby directly for oil and gas 
interests like Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, 
correct?
    Mr. Holt. Say that one more time. What was the 
organization?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 
Association.
    Mr. Holt. Yes, we have a member on staff that does work for 
LMOGA, yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, the filing is that you are not a 
fiduciary, I am just trying to clarify. You are the managing 
partner of a lobbying firm that has oil and gas clients. You 
are witness today as CEA, but we are seeing no disclosure of 
that in the documents for this hearing.
    Mr. Holt. Again, I am not sure I am following your 
questioning here. I have a fiduciary duty, as the President of 
CEA, to manage CEA to the best of my ability. I am trying to 
fulfill that on a daily basis. And the CEA membership, which is 
largely made up of consuming entities all over the country, I 
also have a fiduciary duty, to a certain extent, extended 
through CEA to all those organizations.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK, and why was that not----
    Mr. Holt. And that is what we are doing.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. But why was your answer that you did not 
have a fiduciary, whether you were not----
    Mr. Holt. I think I probably interpreted that question of 
do I have a financial stake, or do I own stock or something in 
one of these companies, which I think I answered it correctly.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. We can explore that. We would be happy 
to make sure that we get that updated, if necessary.
    Mr. Holt. Sure.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
    I yield back to the Chair.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Hunt from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Trevino, thank you for being here, ma'am. I really 
appreciate it.
    In your most recent publication, you discussed concerns 
about pollution in Houston. I have lived in Houston my entire 
life, and I can tell you on a firsthand account that this is 
the cleanest and safest I have seen Houston, actually, in my 
entire lifetime.
    When I was in middle school and elementary school, I 
remember not being able to go to school because of smog days. 
You could not see the skyline of Houston, Texas because the 
smog was so bad that they would not allow children to go to 
school. If you are under the age of 33 and you are born and 
raised in Houston, you have absolutely no idea what a smog day 
is.
    Now, I recognize that we aren't perfect, and I understand 
that we have a ways to go, but I think this is a testament to 
the work done by the oil and gas industry and actually to 
innovate to make it safer and cleaner as we continue to do so 
for the future. No one on the planet produces energy cleaner 
and safer than American oil and gas, especially the companies 
in my district. The entire energy corridor is in my district, 
and I pride myself on being the energy Congressman of the 
entire world.
    As a candidate, I traveled across the country to meet 
people from all walks of life, and all races, and of all 
people. And you discuss how the oil and gas industry has 
impacted communities of color. And I want to let you know this 
is something that we could actually both agree upon. It does 
impact communities of color, and I am going to tell you how.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Hunt. Behind me is a screenshot of a docuseries that my 
team and I produced for the oil and gas industry. One such 
story is a man behind me.
    His name is Mario Lugo. He runs a company in my district 
that provides countless opportunities for all walks of life. He 
has an amazing story, going from abject poverty to generational 
wealth while providing jobs to countless numbers of people. He 
is a Hispanic man, grew up in poverty, created well cap 
technology to make our oceans cleaner and the industry safer as 
a whole, and Mario is Hispanic. I can tell you that Mario and I 
could really care less about skin color. He actually cares 
about making the industry safer, and cares about making our 
industry better.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Hunt. This is a cover of the Epoch Times from 2 days 
ago, front page. This is talking about opportunities to 
minorities and people of color that have the opportunity to 
make a 6-figure job from Day 1. One of the only industries in 
the entire world that can produce that on Day 1. It is a 
diverse collection of people, as you could probably imagine. 
And I have talked to a lot of people on the ground. I have been 
on rig sites, I have been offshore. And oil and gas is anything 
but racist, if you see it from our perspective. In fact, the 
industry is known as the industry of second chances.
    While visiting one of the sites, I was speaking with a 
Black gentleman at Plains All American in Oklahoma, who said 
that ``the oil and gas has been a godsend'' to him. He 
explained that there were workers of color and diversity and 
people that had prior criminal convictions, a lot of people 
that had no chance of employment in any other industry, and 
that the oil and gas industry is, as I said, the place of 
second chances. And that sounds like the land of opportunity 
that our country was founded upon.
    Oil and gas for the next 20, 30, 40 years of my lifetime is 
not going anywhere. In fact, as global population continues to 
increase, as we push to 10 billion more people, we are going to 
need more barrels of oil and more energy. And I am not talking 
about the champagne problems we have in this country. I am 
talking about developing countries like Africa, Asia, and 
India.
    The issue here is not necessarily where we are at in terms 
of how much pollution we are encountering right now; the issue 
is how do we continue to innovate and allow the oil and gas 
industry to innovate to get to the minimal amount of pollution 
as possible.
    Right now, the United States is about 12.8 percent of the 
world's carbon and decreasing. This notion that we are going to 
replace energy and oil and gas is a lie. There is no such thing 
as energy transition. It is only energy addition. And at some 
point, as we get to the more abundant, reliable source of 
energy for the future, we will get there at some point through 
innovation. But it is not going to be by shutting down the very 
industry that allows us to sit in this room comfortably, that 
is going to allow me to get on a plane and fly back home 
tomorrow, hopefully. Thank you for that industry.
    We will continue to innovate. We will continue to make 
Houston cleaner. But I have to tell you, in my 42 years of 
existence, it is the best I have ever seen it.
    With that, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Magaziner for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. I was listening to Mr. 
Holt's testimony about the high cost of energy that customers 
are consuming, and I understand. I mean, my constituents feel 
that. They feel the high cost of home heating oil this time of 
year. They feel the high cost at the gas pump.
    But what I didn't hear Mr. Holt talk about is the fact that 
the big oil and gas companies kept over $100 billion of profits 
for themselves last year alone. When we have these 
conversations about the very real prices that people are 
feeling in our economy, somehow conveniently always left out of 
the conversation is the fact that the oil and gas industry is 
keeping hundreds of billions of dollars of profits for their 
own pockets. I am not talking about revenue. I am talking about 
profits, $100 billion last year alone. That is more than a 
quarter billion dollars a day. That is more than $300 per 
American, every one of us sitting here, more than $300 out of 
our pockets to oil and gas industry profits.
    And when it comes to the OCS, which is what this hearing is 
about, Dr. Cruickshank, can you please put it on the record? 
These lease areas in the OCS that we are talking about, who 
owns them and who owns the minerals beneath them, legally?
    Dr. Cruickshank. They are owned by the American public.
    Mr. Magaziner. By the American public. So, we are talking 
about minerals that the American public owns that the oil and 
gas industry extracts and then sells back to us at inflated 
prices, keeping windfall profits for themselves to sell us back 
the minerals that belong to us.
    Now, when these lease sales occur, are there any limits put 
on the prices that the oil and gas industry can sell these 
minerals back to us at? Any caps to the prices as a condition 
of the lease sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We run the leasing program. We do not 
manage prices of the commodity.
    Mr. Magaziner. So, no, right. And no limits to the amount 
of profits, the return on it, the ROI. No limits to the profits 
that the oil and gas industry can keep, as opposed to keeping 
prices low to consumers. That needs to be part of the 
conversation here.
    If we are going to continue to award leases of public 
goods, of public minerals, then there ought to be some 
conversation about limiting the windfall profits. Because 
again, we are not talking about the cost of production. We are 
not talking about worker salaries, we are not talking about 
R&D. We are talking about profits that the companies are 
retaining off of the backs of working people like those that 
all of us represent. So, I want that to be part of the 
conversation going forward.
    And I want to shift gears for a minute to talk about 
revenue sharing and royalties. I heard my colleague, Mr. Hunt, 
say that the energy transition is a fiction, or it is not real. 
I can tell you, coming from Rhode Island, it is very real. In 
Rhode Island, we have offshore wind. We have the first offshore 
wind farm in the country. We are building more. Within the next 
decade, we expect more than 90 percent of our electricity to 
come from offshore wind. We are transitioning.
    But there is a problem, which is that, unlike for offshore 
oil and gas, there is no revenue sharing with the states under 
current law for offshore wind.
    Now, as we continue to build offshore wind in my state and 
potentially elsewhere, I know we are looking at lease sales in 
the Gulf, I imagine it would be helpful for other states as 
well to get a share of the royalties to go toward conservation, 
to go toward workforce development, whatever else it may be.
    So, I would just like to dive into that with the remaining 
time I have left, and ask Mr. Havens and ask Mr. Blankenship, 
would it be helpful, as offshore wind is built in the Gulf, for 
your states to receive royalty payments, to receive a share of 
the revenue in the same way that you do for oil and gas 
already? Would that be helpful for your states' bottom lines?
    Mr. Holt. Yes. As addressed earlier, if wind is an 
addition, it is another revenue source that would allow us to 
develop the continued coastal environmental projects, then, 
sure, any additional revenue would be beneficial.
    Mr. Magaziner. Mr. Blankenship, I assume the answer is the 
same.
    Mr. Blankenship. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Magaziner. Yes. So, I hope that this is something that 
we can work on together here. As a matter of fairness, I think 
if we do it for oil and gas, we ought to do it for wind, too. 
This is a public good. States are impacted. And rather than 
having 100 percent of those payments go to the Federal coffers, 
it is only fair that states get a share, as well as they do in 
the oil and gas space. So, I hope that this is something that 
we can work on together possibly, going forward.
    With that, my time has expired. I will yield back.
    Mr. Graves [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    Chairman Westerman, I suggest that perhaps the Committee 
host a briefing on energy production to help the gentleman from 
Rhode Island understand it is actually an auction process that 
sets a value based on demand.
    I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas for 5 minutes, the 
Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And along those lines, Mr. Holt, which oil company sets the 
price of oil and gas?
    Mr. Holt. None of them.
    Mr. Westerman. Would you like to explain how the price of 
oil and gas occurs?
    Mr. Holt. Well, I am not an economist, but it is set by the 
market. So, supply and demand----
    Mr. Westerman. The market, exactly. And the producers sell 
into the market, and they receive payment from what the market 
is offering. And as supply is constrained, what happens to 
price?
    Mr. Holt. The price generally goes up. And it is a global 
commodity.
    Mr. Westerman. And we are seeing record oil company 
profits, especially from OPEC-member countries who set all-time 
records on their profits. So, I just wanted to give you an 
opportunity to explain some basic economics in a free-market 
capital system that gets manipulated by cartels and countries 
that join together to set oil prices when we don't have enough 
production.
    Mr. Cruickshank, in BOEM's analysis outlining options for 
2024 through 2029, the program for offshore leasing, BOEM 
looked at offering 10 lease sales over 5 years, versus offering 
3 lease sales. BOEM found that a 3-sale program would result in 
a reduction of up to 2.3 billion barrels of oil production, of 
which BOEM estimates roughly 57 percent will be replaced by 
imports.
    Additionally, BOEM's own analysis finds that each Gulf of 
Mexico lease sale, on average, lowers domestic GHG emissions, 
and generates net social benefits of roughly $5 billion. So, 
given that preceding analysis, one done by, I am assuming you 
might have even been involved in that one done by BOEM, in your 
opinion is BOEM upholding its mandate under the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to put forth a 5-year program that 
best meets the national energy needs?
    Dr. Cruickshank. The OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary 
to balance a host of factors that are listed in the Act, and 
the Secretary has broad discretion under the Act to find an 
appropriate balance between all those factors.
    Mr. Westerman. So, it was Secretary Haaland that saw these 
studies and results and made the decision somehow, in her mind, 
this was a balanced decision.
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes. This is how the Secretary chose to 
balance all the factors that she is required to consider under 
the Act.
    Mr. Westerman. OK. So, given that Lease Sale 261 was held 
on December 20, 2023, under the Inflation Reduction Act, your 
agency can offer offshore wind leases only until December 2024 
without another oil and gas sale. Is it accurate to say that 
from December 2024 until the potential 2025 oil and gas sale 
there will not be any new wind lease offerings?
    Dr. Cruickshank. That is correct. We will comply with the 
provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.
    Mr. Westerman. So, there are not going to be any new wind 
lease offerings during that time period. And if the offshore 
oil lease sale, the next one is not completed, it just moves 
that time frame out longer to do more offshore wind lease 
sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. That is correct.
    Mr. Westerman. And your agency will abide by the law and 
continue down that path?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, sir. We will follow the law.
    Mr. Westerman. So, how will that affect this so-called 
transition?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Well, it depends on whether those sales 
are held or not. And those are decisions made by the Secretary 
at the time of that lease sale.
    Mr. Westerman. So, in the Secretary's broad discretion and 
the ability to balance, could she for some reason say, oh, we 
are going to go ahead and have wind lease sales, or do you 
think that would be breaking the law?
    Dr. Cruickshank. The Secretary does not have discretion 
under the IRA to hold a wind lease sale unless there has been 
an oil and gas lease sale in the preceding year.
    Mr. Westerman. So, how is the Department going to meet the 
transition goals if they can't hold offshore wind sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Well, we are planning for both the oil and 
gas sales and the wind lease sales. We are planning right now 
to have as many as four offshore wind lease sales this calendar 
year, and are beginning the planning process for other sales 
that may occur following the next oil and gas lease sales.
    Mr. Westerman. Will this be on pace to reach the 
Administration's goals by 2030?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We are reviewing project plans. And with 
the leases that have been issued and will be issued, we believe 
that we will have reviewed project plan submittals that will 
meet that 30-gigawatt target.
    Mr. Westerman. We will anxiously wait to see that happen.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the remaining time to you 
if you have further questions.
    Mr. Graves. Well, good. I recognize the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and happy new 
year. I just wanted to clarify a couple things.
    I definitely think we should not be auditioning to get on 
E&C or have any E&C leadership here. And for the record, Africa 
is a continent and not a country.
    We often hear from colleagues across the aisle that fossil 
fuel development in the United States is some of the cleanest 
and safest in the world, considering our strong environmental 
laws. The communities in my district would beg to differ. They 
still suffer from the impacts of having the largest urban oil 
field in the country in their backyard.
    Ms. Trevino, based on your testimony, it is clear that you 
also are all too familiar with the impacts of living near oil 
and gas infrastructure. Pipelines damage, sensitive and fragile 
ecosystems leak and can contaminate air and water, toxic waste 
from offshore drilling is transported and disposed of in your 
community, refineries are a major source of air pollution, 
sending sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and benzene into the 
air you breathe. My, oh my. We may have the best and safest 
environmental laws in the world, but they don't mean anything 
if they are not enforced. Hallelujah.
    So, Ms. Trevino, are environmental standards in your 
community well enforced?
    Ms. Trevino. Absolutely not. Texas has a one-to-three 
enforcement rate. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
is the agency that is supposed to be enforcing the EPA rules 
and regulations. But again, 1 to 3 percent is almost, it is 
closer to zero than it is anything.
    So, as you mentioned, even though the technology is there 
to make operations safer, if it is not used and corners are 
cut, then there is no enforcement.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. In my book, in California, 1 to 3 
percent would be considered an epic fail.
    So, are refineries and other heavy industries penalized if 
they violate, say, air quality laws?
    Ms. Trevino. Only 1 to 3 percent of the time is there any 
type of consequence for a violation. For example, Shell. In a 
10-year period, in one facility they had 2,000 violations. That 
is about one every other day. And all they paid for that decade 
of violations was $700,000. And I did the calculations. It is 
about $70 per violation. And that could be anything from a leak 
to a fire, as they had a 3-day fire this May, that same 
facility.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. That is amazing. And also, a 1 to 3 
percent rate. So, at least they are consistent in their 
disregard.
    It is abundantly clear that the offshore oil and gas 
industry and their onshore refineries, pipelines, and other 
infrastructure are too often operating without accountability 
and without any incentive to do the right thing. We have heard 
a lot about the money that they are making, and it is 
unfortunate that we continue to allow profits over people to be 
the mantra of the day.
    So, would you say that there is a culture of safety in the 
oil and gas industry?
    Ms. Trevino. Absolutely not. And the reason I say that is 
because there is a culture of, again, cutting corners in order 
to make more profits. This is commonly known. I mean, if you 
talk to anybody, to people on the ground, they will tell you. 
Even people who work for the industry, they will say, oh yes, 
it is crazy, the things we do just to save a little bit of 
money, such as regular emergency flaring. If it is regular, it 
is not emergency. They should be able to get that fixed.
    For example, this happened on December 23. This was not 
considered a big incident. Where I live this is considered 
something pretty regular to see in the sky. The sky was 
completely black, and that was from flaring. That was not a 
fire, even though it looked like a fire from my house. But this 
was just, they said, from the company they said, ``There should 
be no impact to the surrounding communities.'' But if you can 
smell it and you can see it, and you can see it the next day 
still in the sky, then it is affecting you.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And I also find it so choice that Black 
and Brown communities should be, like, rallying up and down at 
having jobs where their safety and their health is put into 
question every single day.
    Can you briefly discuss in the few seconds that we have 
left, what the Gulf Coast region could look like years from now 
if states and the Federal Government work together to reduce 
fossil fuel pollution and achieve environmental and climate 
goals, while also creating good-paying jobs?
    Ms. Trevino. Yes, I mean, it would be transformational for 
Texas, because we have some really thriving businesses. It is 
not just oil and gas. We have a thriving legal field, medical 
field. Even though the medical field is, again, it is almost 
ironic, because we have one of the largest cancer centers in 
the world, but we are pretty much brewing cancer down the 
street.
    So, if in a future where operations are safer, and people 
are able to breathe, and have higher energy levels, and be more 
productive, that is going to be a better society overall. If we 
keep going down the same path we are going now, in 10 or 15 
years I foresee a lot more people are going to be on 
disability. They are not going to be able to work regularly. I 
have been in that position before, where I have thought I can't 
hold a full-time job because I am so exhausted, I am so sick, 
and I am so in pain.
    So, in 10 years, 15 years, when those things are not really 
dragging my community down, I know it is going to be 
transformational because we are hard-working people, we care 
about our community, and we can just push it so much further.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you also for just letting 
her finish her sentence. I really deeply appreciate that. Happy 
new year.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. You too. I recognize the gentleman 
from Alabama, Mr. Carl, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Blankenship, like you had mentioned before, 
the GOMESA funds are critical for supporting vital projects 
such as boat ramps, shorelines, bike trails, nature park 
enhancements in south Alabama. In fact, the project that you 
actually talked about, Salt Aire, I was a County Commissioner, 
and I was involved in bringing that back to life, and I 
couldn't speak of a better project to point out. Most people in 
this room don't realize the natural resources we have. We are 
known as the North American Amazon, our entire district that 
you are responsible for and I am responsible for also.
    Let me see where I am here in my notes. Natural park 
enhancements policies have led to a substantial reduction in 
revenue. I have been fighting, and I am committed to increasing 
the state's revenue share and mandating lease sales since the 
day I have been in office.
    In 2021, I introduced the Gulf Coast Recreational Fund Act, 
which required the Department of the Interior to pay GOMESA 
states the revenue that it was missing out of the dues of the 
canceled leases by this Administration, the Biden 
administration. This year, I was proud to work to get language 
included in H.R. 1 which increases the states' revenue share of 
offshore oil and gas, offshore winds, and mandate a minimum 
number of leases or sales per year.
    Here are questions, I have a couple of them. Can you talk 
about the benefits to the state which see the increase in 
revenues and shares and more lease sales?
    And also, I would like for you to touch on the Rig to Reef 
program that we are all so proud of on the Gulf Coast region.
    Mr. Blankenship. Sure, thank you. The ability for us to do 
the projects that we have done has really made a huge 
difference in coastal Alabama. The number of parks, waterfront 
properties that we have been able to acquire and work with the 
different cities on to build access to the public to the 
waterfront has been great. The number of boating accesses, 
which is what I am probably most proud of, the 18 boat ramps in 
all of the communities, from coastal Alabama on the Gulf Coast, 
on the Gulf of Mexico, all the way up through Africatown, Three 
Mile Creek, Chickasaw, and some of our more impoverished areas, 
so that people of all those communities can have access to the 
water. It has been great.
    We have water and sewer improvements that we have made, and 
water quality improvements. That is a critical need that we 
have in our community, especially in some of the cities that 
don't have the resources to address those without some help 
from GOMESA and other projects because they don't have the 
revenue in those cities. So, it has been extremely helpful, and 
I would love to be able to fund those projects and continue to 
grow that water quality program improvements in our two 
counties moving forward. That is our goal.
    You asked about the Rigs to Reef. Most of my career, as you 
know, has been spent building and managing fisheries. Alabama 
has the largest artificial reef program in the country, and red 
snapper and other reef fish need that structure to thrive. The 
largest reefs in our program are oil and gas platforms. While 
the rigs are in production they are called the Islands of Life 
because they act as artificial reef structures. The habitat 
created by those rigs from the surface to the seabed is 
incredible. Organisms of all trophic levels benefit from the 
structure and marine growth on those legs.
    The ecosystem development has grown over several years in 
the water. The thousands of platforms in the Gulf have created 
untold benefits. Many times, in those discussions on the pros 
and cons of OCS production, the positive benefits that rigs 
have on habitat creation and marine populations as well as 
recreational commercial fishing opportunities is lost in the 
conversation. This is a huge benefit to our marine resources 
and the people that enjoy them.
    Over the past decade, Alabama has placed several 
decommissioned oil and gas production platforms to keep those 
ecosystem functions of those islands of life in our marine 
resources. I don't think that I have ever visited one of those 
reef sites that I haven't seen a sea turtle, or a dolphin, or 
sharks enjoying that increased and maintained habitat.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Commissioner, and I appreciate again 
you coming up.
    Ms., is it Trevano? I know I am butchering that, and I 
apologize.
    Ms. Trevino. Trevino.
    Mr. Carl. OK, Trevino.
    Ms. Trevino. Yes.
    Mr. Carl. Can I ask you a quick question? You said your 
family moved here from Mexico to Houston in that area. Was the 
oil industry there when your family moved here?
    Ms. Trevino. When we moved there, there was already 
industry there.
    Mr. Carl. OK, does any of your family work in the oil 
industry?
    Ms. Trevino. My former stepdad, I believe, worked in some 
type of manufacturing.
    I mean, because the thing is, in Houston, even if you don't 
work directly for oil and gas, there are a lot of adjacent 
businesses.
    Mr. Carl. Yes, before I was born, my family lived in 
Houston, and everybody worked for the oil industry.
    Ms. Trevino. Right.
    Mr. Carl. But thank you. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Trevino. Yes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Graves. The gentleman yields back. The Ranking Member 
of the Full Committee is recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. 
Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member.
    Let me just add for the record that we were talking about 
market-driven and the role of market in both price setting and 
cost, and I want to enter into the record that the U.S. 
Government spends $649 billion per year on fossil fuel 
subsidies, according to the International Monetary Fund, and I 
think that needs to be noted, as well, that it is part of the 
story.
    In this discussion, it is a discussion that, unfortunately, 
continues to happen over and over in Congress as to aid the 
validity of the reality of climate change, whether it is true 
or not. And while we don't have an outright denial discussion 
going on today, the fact that we are talking about the 
transition as though it was an impediment to dealing with 
critical issues in this country, as opposed to a goal that 
needs to be followed assertively and aggressively for the 
future, not just those of us here, but the generations that are 
coming after us, and that transition is part of the discussion, 
and that discussion should be driven by science, and not by 
profit motive, and not by the power of any particular industry.
    The other point I want to make, and Dr. Cruickshank, let me 
ask you. Do you expect the amount of revenue states are 
receiving to decrease over the next 6 years?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I thank you for that question. No, we see 
the revenue continuing to grow for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Trevino, thank you for raising the issue that doesn't 
get raised enough, and that is the issue of public health and 
quality of life for our fellow Americans and citizens in this 
country.
    And the one point I want to make that industry has a huge 
problem with, and says when you do the analysis either on the 
siting, the permitting, or the NEPA process, the resistance to 
including cumulative impact as part of how we assess public 
health, how we assess environmental impact, et cetera, could 
you speak to the communities that you represent with your 
organization, frontline, EJ communities in general across this? 
Can you talk about cumulative impact and why that has to be a 
factor in this discussion, as well?
    Ms. Trevino. Yes. The reason why cumulative impact is so 
important is because our bodies don't just clear out between 
impacts. So, every additional impact to our body, more poison 
that we breathe in, we drink, we eat, it accumulates in our 
body, the damage accumulates.
    So, if you have people who are already more vulnerable to 
certain conditions, for example, the Latino community, we 
already have higher rates of high blood pressure and heart 
disease, and we know that pollution also exacerbates and makes 
those issues worse. So, you have compounding effects from all 
those different health impacts. For example, me. I have already 
some vulnerabilities that existed before, so it makes them even 
worse. And a lot of the people that I work with have breathing 
problems, regular congestion, all the issues that I sort of 
mentioned before.
    And what is unfortunate, again, for me, is sometimes I say, 
OK, I am vulnerable, I am part of the vulnerable population, I 
could just move. But the problem is it is affecting everyone 
around me. My family, we get brown phlegm. That is something 
that is known for in coal miners. Coal miners are known to get 
brown phlegm, but also people who live really close to 
industry.
    So, that is the way it is sort of reflected in our lives. 
It hinders our ability to be people.
    Mr. Grijalva. And study after study has confirmed the point 
that you are making, that there is a cumulative impact on 
public health, that there is a cumulative impact in the long 
run, and that industry and regulators bear a tremendous 
responsibility for that cumulative impact, and it needs to be 
factored into decision making.
    This is not about closing a door, ending an industry. It is 
about a transition that needs to happen, regardless. And what 
frustrates me is that we keep talking about how we, while 
denialism isn't the issue, it is certainly, you know, avoidance 
has become the issue around the issue of climate change and its 
impact, and particularly in frontline communities.
    So, as we avoid this issue, the consequences of when the 
urgency becomes such, it will cost us more economically, it 
will cost us more in terms of public health, and right now we 
have an opportunity to move into a transition that needs to 
happen, and will happen regardless. It will happen regardless, 
that we can ease that transition, support that transition, and 
reach a point where the balance that some of the witnesses were 
talking about and we don't need to be building reliance on the 
same energy extraction that has brought us to this point, and 
that is what we are being asked to do.
    We are being asked to ignore science, we are being asked to 
build a reliance and to hand the keys over to industry. They 
have had the keys. And now I think the balance that we are 
looking for and that I advocate for is that, as we go through 
this transition, that there be transparency, that there be 
accountability, and that we support communities.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez, and thank you to all the witnesses for 
traveling out to DC to testify today.
    It cannot be repeated enough: Energy security is national 
security. However, the message is clearly not heard or 
understood by the Biden administration and its agency heads. 
The decision to halt or slow down our offshore and natural gas 
production does not contribute to our safety, nor does it 
benefit the environment. The demand for energy persists, and if 
we do not produce it here, it simply means that we are going to 
get it from foreign sources to meet our needs. This 
Administration's persistence to implement the failed, dangerous 
ESG standards in industry and business are costly and, again, 
compromising our national security.
    As emphasized in numerous hearings within this Subcommittee 
this Congress, America produces energy more safely, cleanly, 
and efficiently than any other nation. Therefore, it is 
baffling that our government's priority is not pursuing these 
activities domestically. Continuation of the reduction in 
offshore energy leases only serves to increase our reliance on 
adversaries like Venezuela for our energy needs. It is in our 
nation's best interest to invest in our own readily available 
resources supporting American companies and communities.
    One of my constituents, Patrick Montalban, testified before 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday on this very 
issue. He emphasized the tremendous negative impacts that the 
EPA has had on his own small, independent energy company, 
saying that the effects of the Biden administration's over-
regulation will, and I quote, ``literally put small 
independents out of business.'' This is no way for our country 
to produce energy or to support its citizens.
    The House has already taken the first steps in the right 
direction by passing H.R. 1, addressing major concerns related 
to offshore and onshore energy activities, while underscoring 
the importance of safeguarding the environment and communities 
around these leases. Unfortunately, our counterparts in the 
Senate have yet to act on this legislation. It is imperative 
for both chambers of Congress to commit to substantial and 
concrete policies ensuring the protection of our citizens' 
energy requirements.
    While hearings like this to hold the Biden administration 
accountable are crucial, the paramount goal should be enacting 
sound energy policies into law, delivering tangible benefits to 
the American people. The industry needs to have predictability. 
The consumers need to have a constant, steady, consistent, 
affordable supply. Montana's small, local mom-and-pop energy 
producers are facing undue challenges due to overburdensome and 
confusing Biden administration regulations. The absence of a 
clear plan from Congress compounds these difficulties, with 
small operators struggling to stay in business and meet the 
essential energy needs of our citizens.
    It is disheartening to witness this Administration 
burdening small companies with conflicting rules and reporting 
requirements, while larger producers effortlessly navigate 
these challenges with substantial legal and compliance teams. 
Congress' inaction to provide relief to these small businesses, 
which is the backbone of many of our communities, is 
unacceptable. And quite frankly, they are the ones that 
discover and define these fields, these energy fields, so that 
then they end up selling them to the larger producers.
    While the actions of the current Administration are 
detrimental to our local communities, both onshore and offshore 
energy producers, and our national security, we, as Members of 
Congress, must do a better job of countering these actions. 
While hearings are necessary, our focus should be on achieving 
victories for the American people against this Administration, 
and I hope that the insights gained from our witnesses today 
will guide us in that direction.
    Mr. Havens, why do you believe this Administration is so 
focused on minimizing leasing operations on the OCS while 
increasing our foreign reliance?
    Mr. Havens. I honestly don't know. I think you addressed it 
very well in those comments.
    The demand for oil and gas is not going down. We can talk 
about transition, we can talk about other energies, that is all 
well and good. The demand is not going down. So, we are either 
faced with the prospect of taking it from our own domestic 
shores, from the Gulf, which has proven infrastructure, the 
ability to produce it safely and efficiently, or we take it 
from other countries with less-than-stellar environmental track 
records. That is basically the choice we are faced with.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much.
    Real quick, Dr. Cruickshank, I heard you say earlier that 
you expect profits to continue to increase in the future. Is 
that because we just think that the price is going up, or is 
this a complete market condition because of demand going up, as 
well?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, I was not speaking to profit so much 
as revenues, and particularly royalty revenues, because 
production is at historically high levels, and we expect it to 
maintain that level for a while.
    And there are some price impacts to that, as well. But 
regardless, we are going to have more than enough revenues for 
GOMESA to be fully funded for at least the next 10 years.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, thank you very much for your consideration. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Graves from Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Witnesses, I want to 
thank you for coming here today.
    Look, I am not a math whiz, but I do like to read numbers 
to try to help paint pictures. And when I look at numbers, I 
look at things like the EIA energy outlook, which is produced 
by the Biden administration's Department of Energy. And they 
show that we are going to see a growth in global demand for oil 
and gas, OK? We are going to have growth in global demand for 
oil and gas. In fact, they are predicting record demand in 
2025; 103.5 million barrels a day will be consumed in oil alone 
in 2025.
    While Dr. Cruickshank is correct that we have seen growth 
in production in the United States, according to EIA, Dr. 
Cruickshank, and you are incredibly bright, and I am sure you 
know this, EIA outlook says that the growth in production is 
primarily tied to increases in well efficiency. This is EIA, 
again, the Department of Energy. They say that production 
growth continues over the next 2 years driven by increases in 
well efficiency. However, growth slows because of fewer active 
drilling rigs.
    OK, so our own Department of Energy is predicting increased 
demand. Discussed earlier is the carbon intensity of energy. A 
lot of people here talk about emissions and climate change. 
Look, I agree. So, let's go back to math once again. According 
to an analysis that has been done, I think it was Woods 
Mackenzie did it, looking at the carbon intensity, the carbon 
intensity of production in the Gulf of Mexico is one-half, one-
half, of the emissions of other production areas.
    So, if you are showing there is greater demand for oil and 
gas globally, we are showing that we have some of the lowest 
carbon intensity in the world, why would we not produce in the 
areas where you have the lowest intensity?
    Mr. Blankenship, do you think that makes sense, just 
looking at math and numbers?
    Mr. Blankenship. It does not.
    Mr. Graves. Mr. Holt?
    Mr. Holt. It does not.
    Mr. Graves. Mr. Havens?
    Mr. Havens. No, sir.
    Mr. Graves. Dr. Cruickshank, do you have any explanation 
there?
    Dr. Cruickshank. There are leases available to explore, 
develop, and produce, and there will continue to be leases made 
available if the sales and the next program are held. So, I 
really don't understand the question suggesting that there 
won't be opportunities for people to develop their leases in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    Mr. Graves. OK. Well, you made a more definitive statement 
there than you did to the question earlier. You said that the 
information would be relayed to the Secretary, or something 
like that. So, it sounds like you are saying that you do expect 
lease sales will be occurring in the Gulf of Mexico moving 
forward, despite the fact that, what was it, last year was the 
first time since, like, the 1950s that we haven't had a lease 
sale in the Gulf. Or was it 2022? Excuse me. It is really 
remarkable that we are seeing the numbers dropping when global 
demand is increasing.
    Dr. Cruickshank, you testified here years ago, I remember 
distinctly you were sitting right there, and you said that you 
all had done analysis. And whenever there was a decrease in 
production in the United States, that it didn't result in a 
decrease in demand, it simply resulted in supply coming from 
other places like other countries. And we have seen that very 
thing manifest in this Administration's energy policies. And, 
unfortunately, the countries that are profiting are countries 
like Iran and countries like Venezuela: Iran, $60 billion; 
Venezuela, $65 billion in additional profits.
    When we look at what is going on right now in the Gulf of 
Oman, when you look at what is going on in the Red Sea, these 
very areas that the world is becoming more dependent upon, 
these areas are becoming more volatile. So, it really seems to 
me, from an environmental perspective, from a stability 
perspective, and from a supply and demand perspective, that it 
makes more sense to produce right here in the United States and 
in the Gulf of Mexico. Doesn't that seem rational, Dr. 
Cruickshank?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act, the Secretary considers all of those factors, as well as 
the other factors required to be considered. And this is about 
the decision----
    Mr. Graves. This Administration is now considering looking 
at climate change impacts and LNG exports. But once again, if 
we are getting it from areas that have the lowest carbon 
intensity, doesn't it seem like that would make more sense for 
the globe, for global emissions?
    It really is baffling that this Administration is selling a 
false narrative to the American public in regard to emissions 
strategies, and I would strongly encourage folks to spend more 
time on math.
    I know I am out of time, but Ms. Trevino, I made note that 
you indicated your family had immigrated from Mexico. And I 
just looked real quick. The life expectancy in the United 
States is 8.3 years longer than it is in Mexico. There is 70.3 
percent less money made by citizens of Mexico, and they have 
2.8 times more likelihood to be living in poverty. So, I will 
be the first to admit we are not perfect here, we are far from 
perfect, but I think we are doing a pretty damn good job, 
comparatively.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Duarte for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
    Dr. Cruickshank, you mentioned in your opening testimony 
that part of your evaluation and your responsibilities is to 
look at world oil markets and understand them in light of what 
leases you are going to be offering and how much you intend to 
put out there. In looking at those oil markets globally, all 
markets are global when it comes to crude oil, do you look at 
our impacts of depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over 
the last couple of years under the Biden administration, and 
consider what the oil markets would have done, had we not 
depleted our Strategic Oil Reserve in the last few years?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Our analysis for the 5-year program does 
not look at management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that 
is something that is managed by the Department of Energy.
    Mr. Duarte. But surely, if you are going to look at oil 
markets, you are going to have to say we are depleting our 
Strategic Oil Reserve. I mean, in a time of geopolitical 
conflict, in a time of logistics complications all over the 
Suez Canal.
    You do not take into account the fact the only reason oil 
has only gone up about $20 a barrel in the last few years and 
not $30 or $40 a barrel in the last few years is because this 
Administration has not very strategically, I would think, 
depleted our Strategic Oil Reserve. And you don't weigh that 
in?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We look at long-term trends, long-term 
expectations, anything that is put into a 5-year program, so it 
is not going to be produced for 10, 20 years in the future----
    Mr. Duarte. Sure. Is refilling the Strategic Oil Reserve, 
the nearly 350 million barrels that have been pulled out of it, 
is refilling the Strategic Oil Reserve part of your long-term 
plan that you evaluate and look at the need for that, or are we 
simply deciding that we won't drill American oil at our maximum 
capacity, and we won't refill the Strategic Oil Reserve?
    And if we need to, if there is a little too much 
inflationary pressure on this Administration, if the American 
worker, the American family can't balance their books, we will 
just deplete the Strategic Reserve through the next election 
cycle.
    Dr. Cruickshank. I can't speak to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve.
    Mr. Duarte. That is what it looks like.
    Dr. Cruickshank. Those questions need to go to the 
Department of Energy.
    Mr. Duarte. The price of oil has gone up about $20. If you 
look at the charts between the previous administration and the 
current administration, it was running about 60 bucks a barrel, 
now it is running about 80 bucks a barrel. Twenty bucks a 
barrel.
    Russia produces about 10 million, I guess you do if it is 
part of your market analysis, about 10 million barrels of oil a 
day. So, our lack of supplying the world demand for oil, our 
own demand for oil is giving Russia about $200 million a day, 
3.4 million barrels a day out of Iran. We are making Iran about 
$70 million a day. We have 750,000 barrels a day out of 
Venezuela. They are really bad at what they do, but they have 
extraordinary reserves down there, so we are making them about 
$15 million a day.
    Russia is invading Ukraine. We know that Iran has a lot to 
do with the miseries in the Middle East right now, particularly 
in Israel and the subsequent miseries in Gaza. And we know that 
Venezuela is looking jealously at its neighbor, Guyana. Are 
these things that you weigh into your oil market analysis when 
you under-produce oil here in America?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Two things. First, I would note that oil 
production in the United States is at its all-time high. But I 
would also note that under the Act, we are analyzing national 
and regional energy markets in the United States.
    Mr. Duarte. So, we have oil at all-time high, we have oil 
at 33 percent more, on average, than it was a couple of years 
ago. We have the American working family facing all kinds of 
inflationary pressures. We are enriching our geopolitical 
enemies around the world. And the one fact that we have 
increased oil production, not to even mention that there are 
many populations across the globe who are seeking to reach some 
higher standard of living than they are now, and the only 
proven way to do this in a human way is to expand the carbon 
economy. That is simply a fact.
    We have had some dialogue here about oil company profits. 
Do you see oil company profitability as an implicit problem 
with the oil industry as it stands today? Is that a problem to 
be solved by your group?
    Dr. Cruickshank. That is nothing that the Department of the 
Interior would manage. That is more of a tax question.
    Mr. Duarte. It is a tax question?
    You give a lot of land leases to wind farms, big, huge wind 
farms, and it excludes oil leases. Wind farms are subsidized by 
about a 40 percent tax credit all-in, plus a per kilowatt 
production tax credit for the life. Are you concerned that 10 
years from now we will be lamenting wind producer profitability 
as we are lamenting, in some cases here today, oil producer 
profitability?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Right now, the wind projects look like 
they are operating on fairly thin margins. What that will look 
like in 20 years, I don't really know.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Collins for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Holt, I kind of want to discuss a few things on the 
economy. I am a small businessman, and I believe all of America 
is going to know before my tenure is up that I am in the 
trucking business. And I find it odd that we sit here and we 
talk about coal and gas, and then we talk about wind farms. And 
I have no idea how to power one of my trucks with a wind farm, 
but that is OK. I guess we will combine these two things.
    Could you shed some light maybe on the broader economic 
impacts on the trucking and the agricultural sectors when you 
reduce the lease sales?
    And what is this going to mean for the cost of living and 
doing business in the United States when it comes to the 
transportation industry?
    Mr. Holt. Thank you for that question. The trucking 
industry is really on the front line of this entire debate, 
discussion. If the price of diesel goes up, literally the price 
of every commodity goes up. That is all passed on to the 
consumer, to families, to small businesses.
    Further, most trucking companies are small businesses 
themselves that can't afford really to have that extra cost of 
diesel borne by their company. So, many of those companies, 
when we see really high diesel prices, are at risk of going out 
of business, as you probably well know.
    Mr. Collins. Yes.
    Mr. Holt. Ultimately, the problem that we are seeing here, 
and we have spent a lot of time talking about the environmental 
implications, the economic implication, the job implications, 
the price implications on consumers across the economy, the 
trucking industry, the farming community, restaurants, 
individual families, if your policies are designed to 
intentionally restrict energy of some kind, and therefore 
increase energy prices, then that small business, that 
restaurant that employs 50, 60 people that sees their 
electricity prices go up by 30 percent, then that restaurant is 
at risk of going out of business.
    If diesel prices are restricted because of restrictive 
energy policies, then the trucking industry is at risk of going 
out of business. And the pass-along to consumers for groceries 
and every other commodity adds inflationary pressure across the 
entire economy.
    We can talk a lot about the environmental improvement and 
the environmental trajectory that we are on. We must continue 
to talk about that. But failing to recognize the economic 
implications on the trucking industry and all consuming 
industries is a big miss, because those families that could 
least afford to pay it, those that are on fixed incomes or in 
low-income families, are the ones that are hurt the worst when 
we see energy prices go up.
    Mr. Collins. Right, and I think you can add in there 
electricity, your electricity bills, anything on small 
families.
    And the job market, can you go into some, just job market 
across the nation, as far as when they cut these leases and----
    Mr. Holt. Listen, there is not a job in this country that 
is not directly impacted by the energy industry. If you are a 
manufacturer, if you are a steel manufacturer, if you are a 
delivery service, if you are a grocer, if you are a restaurant, 
if energy prices go up, both oil and gas and electricity, you 
are impacted.
    The oil and gas industry directly and indirectly employs 
about 11 million people. But then you ripple that around in the 
whole U.S. economy. And what we have seen with grocery prices 
in the last year-and-a-half, literally, every single time you 
go to the grocery store you see prices go up. That is a direct 
result of higher diesel prices.
    Mr. Collins. And I find it so funny that people think you 
can just turn these things on and off like a light switch.
    Mr. Holt. Right.
    Mr. Collins. And the oil and gas industry is just like any 
other small business. There has to be predictability. And if 
you are going to say, hey, we are going to take the next year 
off, no leases, no nothing, so maybe the next year we will have 
one, you can't just start and stop and start and stop, because 
it is going to have an impact all across, not just the oil rig 
itself, but people that provide services for that rig.
    Mr. Holt. And that is really the key. One of the big things 
about the offshore is it is a long lead time. So, if we are 
going to continue to develop the offshore in the Gulf of Mexico 
and elsewhere, what we lease today comes on-line in 10 years 
and in 12 years.
    Mr. Collins. Right.
    Mr. Holt. So, it is really that long-term trajectory that 
we need to think about, and those long-term jobs, and that 
long-term economic growth that we are considering here today.
    Mr. Collins. That is right. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, this is what I think I have learned, and I 
made some notes for you today, that energy security is national 
security, and the Gulf produces 15 percent of the total U.S. 
production, and it is also less carbon intensive.
    Demand will increase. We have heard that from our 
colleagues. Record profits are going to continue. But you know 
what it looks like they are going to continue for? For our 
enemies, people that want to kill us and destroy this country. 
And that is because we are limiting what we can do here in our 
country to make sure that we are energy independent, which is 
one of the reasons that we did pass H.R. 1 in the House, and it 
needs to be taken up in the Senate.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Tiffany from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Cruickshank, the pace of new offshore wind lease sales 
has been pretty rapid. But recently, some operators pulled out 
of their projects because of profitability concerns. Is BOEM 
considering looking at that pace of additional offshore wind 
lease sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We are continuing the planning process for 
the lease sales. Those are done in conjunction with other 
Federal agencies, state governments, local governments, tribes, 
and we work through a planning process to decide whether to 
hold lease sales or not. But a lot of what we are doing is 
driven by requests from governors of states to look at offshore 
wind opportunities----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, even with the enormous subsidies that are 
going into this, many of these projects are falling by the 
wayside. Is that something that you are considering as you 
evaluate whether you are going to continue to offer these lease 
sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I think the challenge that industry faced 
was one that businesses across all industries have faced in 
terms of interest rates, inflation, and supply chain issues, 
and some of the early contracts that were entered into to 
produce power were just no longer viable. It does not mean they 
have necessarily pulled out of projects, they pulled out of 
contracts. The leases are still in good standing. In some 
cases, the projects are permitted or nearly so, and I expect 
they will compete for future proposals put out by the states to 
purchase electricity.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you study the economics of this?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, we do.
    Mr. Tiffany. And you think that these may be viable in the 
future?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I do.
    Mr. Tiffany. How about without subsidies?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I think every energy industry in this 
country receives subsidies.
    Mr. Tiffany. To the extent that wind and solar do?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I can't speak to solar, but both wind, and 
oil and gas, which are areas I have studied, both receive large 
subsidies.
    Mr. Tiffany. In just a few seconds, I am going to give any 
of you three on that end the opportunity to give a response to 
that.
    Do you believe the Biden administration is building or 
reducing capacity?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Excuse me, I didn't quite hear.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you believe the Biden administration, are 
they building or reducing energy capacity in America?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I think, overall, they are aiming to build 
energy capacity to match what will be energy growth in this 
country over time. But they are working towards an energy 
transition to try to address what the Administration has made a 
priority of, addressing climate change.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is carbon a pollutant?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Carbon emissions contribute to change in 
climate. And whether you consider climate change a pollutant or 
not, it certainly has large impacts on our economy.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Havens, what would you like to see, some 
changes at the Federal level? What would help you in Texas, 
changes in public policy here in Washington, DC?
    Mr. Havens. I would say----
    Mr. Tiffany. In the production of energy.
    Mr. Havens. As it relates specifically to the GOMESA 
funding, stable, ongoing, continuing leasing would benefit 
greatly. We, at the state, benefit quite a bit from that and 
are able to do some pretty incredible environmental coastal 
projects.
    I would say also I would question, we lease our own lands, 
and there is vast acreage that is never produced because the 
producers don't want it. There are a lot of bad reservoirs. I 
would like to see with BOEM, I don't know how the land is 
nominated or why there was, like with the last lease, there was 
such a small percentage leased. Perhaps more input from 
industry to see when these leases come up, where would the 
effective acreage be, which, again, would drive revenues.
    Mr. Tiffany. Same question, Mr. Blankenship.
    Mr. Blankenship. Certainly, we would enjoy some continuity 
in the GOMESA funding in future years. And we think, with lease 
sales, as I have said in my testimony, in years that we have 
had lease sales, the next year our distribution is about 50 
percent higher than in years when there have not been lease 
sales. And that makes a difference for a small state like 
Alabama. To almost double the revenue sharing in those years is 
important. I would like to see us continue to see a more broad 
and comprehensive lease sale program.
    And removing the cap from GOMESA would be helpful to us, as 
a state. In years where we do have these lease sales and good 
production, the cap on that seems unfair to the four producing 
states in the Gulf.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue to need 
carbon energy here in America, and we are going to need it for 
a long time to come. And this whole myth that has been sold to 
the American people about the green fantasy, we heard it today 
from Dr. Cruickshank. It will not lead to prosperity for 
America. In fact, it is going to diminish America. Let's hope 
that we can get back to producing energy in America and making 
energy independent.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Gosar from Arizona.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Havens, when we first started producing oil, cars got, 
what, 2 to 3 miles per gallon, is that true?
    Mr. Havens. I would believe so.
    Dr. Gosar. And today, most cars get about 35 miles to the 
gallon, for the most part. Pretty close to being actually 
right?
    Mr. Havens. Sure.
    Dr. Gosar. So, something happened in there. It is called 
technology. Technology happened. We are getting more out of 
less. And we can actually outrun technology, can we not? We can 
actually outrun it. We can force it to do what we want it to.
    Mr. Cruickshank, do you agree with that comment, that you 
can force your way with technology, even though you don't have 
it?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I think we have a very innovative society, 
and technologies will continue to be developed over time.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. With that being said, then, it has been told 
to me that we need a quantum leap. Let me explain that again, a 
quantum leap in technology to get solar, batteries, renewables 
to the capability of carbon fuels. Am I right?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I----
    Dr. Gosar. The answer is yes.
    Dr. Cruickshank. I don't know that it requires a quantum 
leap.
    Dr. Gosar. The answer is yes.
    Dr. Cruickshank. I think the technologies are there, and 
will continue to be improved.
    Dr. Gosar. They improve, but it is going to take a quantum 
leap for them to be equal to that. And I am going to bring up 
an example.
    Mr. Blankenship, you brought up the revenue sharing. You 
know, when you don't have these lease sales, the state coffers 
don't really improve, do they?
    Mr. Blankenship. That is correct.
    Dr. Gosar. And you use those for a lot of vital services, 
do you not?
    Mr. Blankenship. We do.
    Dr. Gosar. That was part of the agreement with the Federal 
Government and sharing those revenues.
    Mr. Blankenship. Yes, sir, it was.
    Dr. Gosar. So, let me ask you something. How many miles, 
total miles, do these electric school buses get?
    Mr. Blankenship. I don't know.
    Dr. Gosar. Maximum, 93. Let me ask you, how does that work 
for your school districts, rural schools, particularly your 
rural ones?
    Mr. Blankenship. Yes, the rural school districts, they 
drive those school buses a lot more miles than that.
    Dr. Gosar. And then I would talk to my Navajo friends up in 
the Navajo reservation that, not only will they not get two 
kids on the bus, but they are going to be stranded where there 
is no technology for them to get their cell phone service.
    So, this is ridiculous, what we are trying to do here. And 
for us to think that we can outpace our technology is so wrong, 
is so wrong. Because just like my friend, Mr. Tiffany, said, we 
are going to find ourselves in a world of hurt because we 
didn't do things better, that we didn't increase these sales 
because our production is much better than anybody else's 
production. We have the best technology, we continue to refine 
it and get it better, and better, and better.
    So, the future still has a lot of oil and gas in there, and 
if we are producing it the way we should, we are lowering that 
carbon footprint all the way across the board. I am a believer 
in all-of-the-above energy. I believe it. But I also understand 
technology. I have to live within it, I can't force it.
    The patent process was about that discovery. It was that 
one individual that came up with that idea. Maybe it was 
Einstein that talked about E equals MC squared. He came up with 
that idea. Then everybody else jumped into it, and built upon 
that, and then somebody took that to the next level. We are 
forcing science, and that doesn't work for us. That is why 
technology is so important to this realm.
    Dr. Cruickshank, I didn't hear your answer to my friend 
from Louisiana, Mr. Graves, is there going to be an increase in 
lease sales or no, in the Gulf?
    Dr. Cruickshank. There will not be an increase in sales. We 
have the 5-year program that the Secretary put in place that 
allows for three sales to be held over the next 5 years. Those 
will be decided upon by the Secretary at the time as to whether 
to hold or not. And they do provide a schedule that industry 
can plan around.
    Dr. Gosar. Mr. Holt, you control most of your land, right, 
in Texas?
    Mr. Holt. Sorry, I think, yes, we have a little over 13 
million mineral acres that we manage that is state-owned.
    Dr. Gosar. And places like Arizona, where we have lots of 
public land, we have a lot more acres than that in Federal 
custody with joint tenancy with the state.
    As you control most of your public lands, how is that 
easier for you to drill than it is on other Federal lands?
    Mr. Holt. Well, we are blessed with having our own lands, 
and we don't have to go through much of the process that they 
do with the Federal lands. We will talk to industry, see what 
acreage should be nominated. We will put it out there, we will 
get the bids, and then we work hard on the lands.
    We also get a higher royalty from the lands, which I would 
say industry is not a fan of. But again, we are a fiduciary to 
driving as much public revenue as we can, so we have a little 
more direct control and oversight over that.
    Dr. Gosar. As Texas goes, so does----
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gosar, if I may interrupt, without cutting 
environmental corners.
    Mr. Holt. Correct.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. All right.
    Dr. Gosar. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, thank you very much.
    Before we wrap this up, the Ranking Member of the Full 
Committee wants to add something to the record.
    Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 
courtesy.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit reporting from 2014, 
2016, 2018 alleging that Consumer Energy Alliance used people's 
names and addresses without their knowledge, including a dead 
person, to fraudulently submit public comments in favor of 
utility clients and a gas pipeline into the record.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
Did Houston energy group dupe MGE customers to back rate changes?

The Capital Times, October 21, 2014 by Mike Ivey

https://captimes.com/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/did-houston-energy-
group-dupe-mge-customers-to-back-rate-changes/article_fbe07fa3-c487-
5eff-84a7-72d502 c842cd.html

                                 *****

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Opponents of a proposed MGE rate hike rally outside the PSC 
offices recently in front of an inflatable power plant.--JOHN HART--
State Journal

A fossil fuel industry group backing changes to Wisconsin's electric 
rate structure is misrepresenting the wishes of some Madison Gas & 
Electric and We Energies customers in a legal filing with state 
regulators.

The Houston-based Consumer Energy Alliance on Oct. 7 sent the state 
Public Service Commission a petition with names of 2,500 electric 
customers statewide, claiming those consumers ``believe changing the 
current rule will ensure that all ratepayers are treated fairly and 
electricity bills remain affordable.''

But it's unclear how many of those customers actually support the 
proposed changes, which would raise fixed costs for residential 
ratepayers.

For example, Mary Frawley, who lives on Madison's near west side, is 
listed on the petition as supporting the changes. But she told The 
Capital Times she strongly opposes the MGE plan, which would hike her 
monthly service fees from $10 to $19 starting next year.

Frawley says she recalls speaking on the phone with someone from the 
Consumer Energy Alliance. She then agreed to let the group use her 
name, assuming they were against the MGE proposal.

``I thought they were opposed to it . . . but I guess I was mixed up,'' 
she said.

The Consumer Energy Alliance filed the same list of 2,500 names to the 
PSC in the We Energies rate case. The Milwaukee area utility is also 
proposing to raise its monthly fixed charges for residential 
customers--a move clean energy advocates say removes the incentives to 
use less electricity, much of it generated in Wisconsin by burning coal 
or natural gas.

Elizabeth Westlund, a We Energies customer from Kenosha, says she got a 
call some months ago about electric charges but never signed a 
petition. Westlund is opposed to ``anything that will raise my bill,'' 
she said in an interview.

``If they are saying I support We Energies, they are just wrong,'' she 
said. ``And I want my name taken off that list.''

CEA has not previously filed comments with the state Public Service 
Commission, according to PSC spokesman Nathan Conrad.

But the group is well-known in the energy world for its political 
connections in Washington.

One of its top advisors is lobbyist Michael Whatley, who served as 
senior policy advisor on George W. Bush's first presidential campaign 
and transition team. Whatley was later appointed chief of staff to 
former U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, a former cabinet secretary and the 
wife of Bob Dole.

Peter Taglia, a former staffer with Clean Wisconsin now running his own 
energy consulting business, says CEA specializes in crafting public 
relations campaigns designed to appear as grassroots support. Advocates 
often refer to those efforts as ``astroturfing'' or ``greenwashing.''

``If this is true, it undercuts the legitimacy of the PSC process,'' 
Taglia said. ``It's clear these out-of-state coal companies know they 
benefit from higher fixed fees on seniors, renters and low energy 
users.''

Whatley said his firm is simply working to ensure that electric rates 
are fair to all ratepayers. He said the growth of solar energy is 
leaving fewer customers paying the costs of maintaining the ``electric 
grid''--the power plants, poles and wires that keep power flowing to 
homes and businesses 24-7.

``We believe that rates need to be fair for all ratepayers and have 
been very clear about that,'' he said.

Whatley denies that any residential customers contacted by CEA were 
misled about the group's intentions or duped into allowing their names 
to be submitted to the PSC.

``We talk to folks and then ask if they would like us to send a letter 
in on their behalf,'' he says. ``If they answer in the affirmative, we 
go ahead and do that.''

Still, there is little doubt some of those contacted by CEA were not 
sure of what they were agreeing to or the complexity of the issues 
involved.

Tom Frutiger of Madison is listed on the petition and claims he doesn't 
remember even speaking with anyone from CEA, although he admits his 
memory has been failing him since suffering a stroke.

Asked if he supports the MGE changes, Frutiger said, ``Hell no.''

``What I'd like to see is less fossil (fuel) burning,'' he said. ``They 
should put some fans in the middle of the lake and generate electricity 
that way.''

CEA has been the focus of several investigative stories on the public 
relations and lobbying industry as it relates to the oil and gas 
industry. One piece co-published by Salon.com and The Tyee tells how 
the group was heavily involved in fighting tougher carbon laws and 
thwarting development of renewable energy.

``Oil industry power players, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, 
Marathon, Shell and Norway's Statoil are among the CEA's key financial 
backers, and many of these companies also happen to have deep ties to 
the Alberta tar sands,'' writes reporter Geoff Dembicki.

MGE officials say they had seen the comments filed by CEA but were not 
involved in the PSC filing or any telephone polling that would have 
created a list of supporters.

``We are not involved with this group,'' MGE spokesman Steve Kraus 
said.

CEA does not maintain an office in Wisconsin but it counts Wisconsin 
Manufacturers & Commerce among its members.

Electric utilities in Wisconsin and in other states are struggling with 
how to cover the fixed costs of operating and maintaining electric 
systems amid the increase in solar power usage and energy conservation. 
They want to dramatically hike the monthly service fees for most 
customers while reducing charges for the amount of electricity 
consumed.

Critics contend the changes will discourage customers from using less 
electricity and are simply a way for utilities to maintain profits and 
protect their investment in plants that burn coal or natural gas.

Last year, the state's largest electric utility We Energies was granted 
a 20 percent increase in fixed charges by the PSC and is now proposing 
a 75 percent jump in its fixed charge to $16 a month.

MGE had initially talked about raising the monthly customer charge to 
nearly $50 by 2016 and potentially $70 by 2017. It has since backed off 
that timetable and now proposes raising the fee to $19 in 2015 and 
holding off on future hikes pending negotiations with the Citizens 
Utility Board and other customer groups.

Whatley says CEA is taking an interest in Wisconsin because it is one 
of the first states where changes in electric billing are going before 
regulators. It has also lobbied in Arizona, which had passed a fee on 
solar installations.

``We don't want to end up with a system where the only way your rates 
aren't going to go up is if you install rooftop solar,'' said Whatley.

Right now, solar power accounts for just a fraction of the energy 
produced in Wisconsin.

Of the 141,000 customers of MGE, just 320 have commercial grade solar 
installations, according to figures from the Environmental Law and 
Policy Center in Chicago. We Energies has an even lower percentage of 
solar customers, with 580 out of a customer base of nearly one million.

``This isn't about protecting customers from solar; it's about 
protecting the interests of utility shareholders,'' said Rob Kelter, a 
senior attorney with the center.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 __
                                 
Nexus pipeline opponents urge U.S. postal service to investigate 
lobbying group (photos)

Cleveland.com/Metro, Updated: Sep. 16, 2016, 10 a.m., By Michael 
Sangiacomo

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2016/09/
nexus_pipeline_opponents_urge_us_postal_ 
service_to_investigate_lobbying_group_photos.html

                                 *****
                                 
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


  The U.S. Postal Service has been asked by residents of Northeast 
Ohio to investigate a Houston-based oil and gas lobbyist that used some 
of their names without permission to bolster support for a pipeline 
through the state.

Akron attorney David Mucklow filed the request on behalf of the 
Coalition to Reroute Nexus, a group of property owners who oppose the 
natural gas project proposed by the Nexus Gas Transmission.

Mucklow asked the postal inspection service and the Federal Energy 
Review Commission to conduct a criminal review of the Consumer Energy 
Alliance. CEA sent 347 letters to FERC using the names of local 
residents, including an Ohio man who has been dead since 1998.

The complaint can be viewed on the website of FERC, the federal agency 
that will decide if Nexus is permitted to construct a 255-mile pipeline 
to carry natural gas from Eastern Ohio to Northern Michigan and 
Ontario, Canada. The document includes affidavits from 14 Ohio 
residents who deny writing letters approving the pipeline as well as 
giving permission to the CEA to write letters on their behalf.

``This is an extremely serious matter,'' Mucklow said in the filing. 
``Submission of hundreds of bogus comment letters during the comment 
period is calculated to convey the false impression that there is 
widespread public support for construction and operation of the 
pipeline.''

Postal investigator Tammy Mayle of the Pittsburgh regional office, 
which includes Ohio, said her office has not seen the complaint but 
noted that such an investigation is a complicated process.

Mayle said if warranted, such a complaint could eventually include the 
attorney general of the state where the letters originated, which would 
be Texas in this case. Mucklow said the investigation also should 
involve the U.S. Attorney General's Office.

CEA President David Holt has said his company used computers to 
robocall 25,000 homes, mostly in Ohio, asking for support of the 
pipeline project. CEA then generated letters from questions asked by 
computers during the calls, attributing them the letters to owners of 
the telephone numbers dialed. Those letters were mailed to FERC with 
the residents' names but did not indicate CEA's involvement in the 
process.

A number of Ohio residents were angry after learning about the letters. 
Some say they don't even recall getting a robocall. The homeowners were 
not shown copies of the letters that went with their names on them, 
Holt said. No effort was made to determine who in the household took 
the survey. The name of long-deceased Glenn England of Risingsun, Ohio, 
near Toledo, was on one of the letters.

Holt, responding Thursday to the latest complaint by CORN, accused the 
anti-pipeline residents of trying to ``co-opt the FERC process.''

``There is nothing new in this filing from CORN,'' Holt said in an 
email. ``Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) has developed various methods 
over the past 10 years to allow CEA members and the public to 
participate in comment periods established by regulatory agencies. CEA 
takes numerous steps--and maintains meticulous records--to ensure that 
the comments generated and submitted to regulatory agencies are valid 
expressions of support for energy projects.''

But CORN co-founder Jonathan Strong said what CEA did ``was criminal'' 
and that CEA and FERC need to be held accountable.

``FERC does not seem to care about accountability,'' Strong said. ``The 
whole evaluation process has been co-opted by oil and gas. This is a 
new day. We must stand up against this kind of activity or it will not 
change.''

FERC declined to comment about the complaint. However, spokeswoman 
Tamara Young Allen said the commission will look into the concerns 
raised.

``The person or entity that raises the issue does not matter. We do not 
vet our letters, that's not part of our process,'' Allen said. ``We 
look at the science. We operate like a court. We look at the facts of a 
proposal.''

She said anyone who feels misrepresented could send a letter to FERC, 
though FERC will not remove the letter generated by the CEA in a 
person's name.

Construction on the pipeline could begin early next year. It would run 
through hundreds of private properties, including many in Medina, 
Lorain and Summit counties.

Strong said CORN contacted 41 people whose letters appeared on FERC's 
website saying they favor the pipeline. He said every one contacted 
denied sending a letter.

                                 ______
                                 

S.C. lawmakers call for law enforcement probe of bogus pro-utility 
emails; Fake emails spur calls for investigation

Post & Courier, February 20, 2018 by Andrew Brown

https://www.postandcourier.com/business/s-c-lawmakers-call-for-law-
enforcement-probe-of-bogus-pro-utility-emails/article_17c174d6-158c-
11e8-b42c-a72c9ef540e9.html

                                 *****

COLUMBIA--Lawmakers have demanded an investigation into a pro-utility 
email lobbying campaign that used people's names and addresses without 
their knowledge.

The push for an investigation comes less than a day after The Post and 
Courier revealed a string of cookie-cutter, pro-utility emails that 
impersonated average South Carolinians. The fake messages appear geared 
to pressure lawmakers to support Dominion Energy's proposed $14.6 
billion takeover of SCANA Corp.

On Monday, the House speaker's office said it contacted the attorney 
general about the emails. Attorney General Alan Wilson's office, in 
turn, informed the State Law Enforcement Division about the 
questionable communications sent through a group called the Consumer 
Energy Alliance.

``We are certainly going to get the attorney general to look into 
this,'' said House Majority Leader Gary Simrill, a Rock Hill Republican 
who received several of the falsified emails.

``If you've got a utility or a group that is misappropriating people's 
identities, I think that is a real problem,'' said Senate Majority 
Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield.

The nonprofit group set up a system of sending prewritten messages 
supporting Dominion's deal to members of the S.C. Legislature. Dominion 
and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce are both members of that 
industry-backed group.

SCANA was a member of the group from 2014 to 2016, and paid $10,000 
annually to be part of the Houston-based organization, said Eric 
Boomhower, the company's spokesperson. SCANA had no knowledge of the 
group's activities in South Carolina, he said.

David Holt, president of the Consumer Energy Alliance, said the group 
orchestrated the ``grass-roots'' lobbying campaign after asking 
Dominion whether it should get involved. But the group itself, Holt 
said, was not to blame for the emails that impersonated state 
residents.

Dominion, a longtime member of the energy group, saw the text of the 
email before it was released to the public, but it didn't commission 
the email campaign, spokesman Chet Wade said. The company was kept 
apprised on the work before the fake emails emerged.

``The more we hear about this issue, the more we learn, the more it 
feels like there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by 
someone other than us or CEA,'' Wade said. ``We are puzzled by it. We 
are disturbed by it.''

The fake emails, Holt said, were sent from computers outside South 
Carolina. He declined to say how many illegitimate messages were sent.

The Consumer Energy Alliance, Holt said, supports lawmakers' and the 
attorney general's request for an investigation. The group will 
cooperate with whatever is asked of it, Holt said.

``We're as concerned as some of the legislators in the state are,'' 
Holt said. ``In my opinion, we are on the same side as these 
legislators because our system was duped.''

This isn't the first time the Consumer Energy Alliance has been 
involved in an episode where people's names were used to advocate for a 
pro-industry issue without their permission.

In 2014, the group sent a petition to Wisconsin regulators in support 
of a utility company's plans in that state. That petition was denied 
after several people said their names were wrongly included among the 
2,500 people listed on the document.

A similar problem occurred in Ohio in 2016. In that case, state 
residents filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission after the Consumer Energy Alliance submitted 347 letters of 
support for a proposed interstate pipeline project.

The problem was at least 14 of those people said they didn't support 
the pipeline project and never gave the Consumer Energy Alliance 
permission to submit letters on their behalf. One of the Ohio residents 
who was named in a letter died 18 years earlier, according to the 
Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fielded the complaints, but in 
documents, the federal agency said it doesn't handle claims of ``mail 
fraud. ``

Holt blamed those past issues on groups and bloggers who ``oppose 
energy and pipelines.'' He said the group was cleared of any claims of 
wrongdoing in both instances.

State lawmakers see the issue differently.

``It's a way for the utilities to do the marketing but to disguise who 
is doing it,'' said Massey. ``To the average person, it makes it look 
like there are multiple groups supporting this deal.''

Simrill, the Rock Hill Republican, is concerned about how these fake 
emails affect state lawmakers' interactions with their constituents.

``Unfortunately, this delegitimizes the real emails we get, because you 
starting thinking: Is this a ploy? Is this a fraudulent email?'' 
Simrill said. ``It has reverberations across the spectrum.''

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Stauber. And I also ask unanimous consent to enter into 
the record the BOEM's 2024 to 2029 proposed 5-year plan, and 
would like to draw attention to chapters 5, page 25 of the 
plan, which states, and I quote, ``The results are consistent 
with the analysis discussed in chapter 1, 2, and 3, that Outer 
Continental Shelf oil production has one of the lowest GHG 
intensities compared to domestic onshore and other global 
producers of oil.''
    I will enter that into the record.

    [The information follows:]
   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 __
                                 
    Mr. Stauber. I want to thank the witnesses for their 
valuable testimony today.
    Representative Dingell, before we close, you, my friend, 
will have 5 minutes. How is that?
    Mrs. Dingell. I will let the poor witnesses that have been 
here, but I wanted to call and tell them I will read everything 
that they said, and show my support for you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Representative Dingell, if you want 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. That is OK.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. I thank the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Wednesday, January 17. The hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                        CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE

House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Response for the Record from Consumer Energy Alliance

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Subcommittee 
Chairman Stauber, and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:

    On behalf of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), its more than 350 
member organizations and more than 500,000 individual members, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify during the Energy and Mineral 
Resources Subcommittee Hearing ``Examining the Biden Administration's 
Limits on Access to the OCS: Impacts on Consumers, States, and 
Operators'' on Jan. 11, 2024.

    CEA is pleased to have the opportunity to respond and confirm for 
the Congressional record once and for all that CEA has been cleared in 
several years-old allegations regarding falsified grassroots comments. 
Representative Grijalva inserted these claims for the record at the 
close of the hearing. CEA would like to provide more accurate 
information to Representative Grijalva, and provide the current facts 
to the Committee and Congress.

    Representative Grijalva referenced three instances where CEA was 
accused of providing public comments for a state rulemaking without 
knowledge or consent of the party submitting the comments. These 
allegations occurred in 2015 (Wisconsin); 2016 (Ohio) and 2018 (South 
Carolina).

    In all three cases referenced, CEA was either fully cleared of 
wrongdoing or the allegations were found by the pertinent regulatory 
agency to be lacking adequate substance to prompt a formal 
investigation.

    Outcomes of the incidents are included below:

     Regarding allegations related to Wisconsin Public Service 
            Commission proceedings, the Milwaukee County District 
            Attorney investigated and in 2015 found there was ``no 
            evidence'' that anyone connected to CEA did anything 
            intentionally, as alleged by an activist group opposed to 
            CEA's position. The letter is attached to this submission.

     In 2016 in Ohio, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
            declined an activist group's request to investigate.\1\ 
            FERC referred the matter to the United States Postal 
            Service, which also declined to pursue an investigation and 
            did not even contact CEA to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2016/09/
nexus_pipeline_controversy_dead_mans_name_ 
others_appear_in_letters_supporting_the_plan_photos.html

     In 2018, the South Carolina Attorney General did not 
            pursue an investigation of CEA after activist groups 
            accused CEA of delivering up to (approximately) five 
            comment letters that the respondents said they did not 
            author. Of note, as soon as CEA became aware of the 
            allegations of false comments, CEA asked the Attorney 
            General of South Carolina to investigate. Again, as with 
            Wisconsin and Ohio matters noted above, the South Carolina 
            Attorney-General's office declined to investigate the 
            matter. In fact, South Carolina found that CEA had been 
            victimized by the same two companies that sent more than 
            one million false comments into the Federal Communication 
            Commission's Net Neutrality public comment docket. That 
            finding came as the result of a major investigation by 
            BuzzFeed News \2\ into the false comments sent to the FCC. 
            The story recounted CEA's experience with those two 
            companies, Media Bridge and LCX Digital, as an example of 
            how those companies operated and intentionally submitted 
            false comments that were difficult, if not impossible, to 
            verify by an organization such as CEA. CEA confirms the 
            accuracy of the article's account of CEA-related 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            information.

    \2\ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jsvine/net-neutrality-fcc-
fake-comments-impersonation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CEA also points out that in 2023, the Attorney General of Ohio 
investigated allegations regarding potentially falsified comments. CEA 
is confident that its personnel did nothing wrong and that, as with the 
other matters cited above, CEA will be exonerated. CEA has been and 
continues to be fully cooperating with the Attorney General's office. 
Once again, the allegations originated with a group opposed to CEA's 
position and mission. CEA looks forward to the findings of the Attorney 
General's investigation and will update the Committee once those are 
made public.

    CEA remains committed to its mission of advocating for energy 
policies that support affordable, reliable and environmentally 
responsible energy. We recognize that criticisms, false allegations and 
other attempts to besmirch CEA's reputation are an unfortunate, 
constant cost of doing business. CEA is, however, undeterred from 
working tirelessly on behalf of American families, farmers, labor, 
manufacturers, and small businesses to ensure everyone has access to 
affordable, reliable and environmentally sound energy.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Committee.

            Sincerely,

                                                David Holt,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20240111/116688/HHRG-
118-II06-20240111-SD005.pdf

                                 [all]