[Senate Hearing 110-361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-361
J. GREGORY COPELAND NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE NOMINATION OF J. GREGORY COPELAND, OF TEXAS, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VICE DAVID R. HILL
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-124 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Copeland, J. Gregory, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department
of Energy...................................................... 2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico............. 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 9
J. GREGORY COPELAND NOMINATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m. in room
366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. OK. Why don't we go ahead with the hearing?
The Committee meets this morning to consider the nomination of
J. Gregory Copeland to be General Counsel at the Department of
Energy. We'd also planned to consider the nomination of Stanley
Suboleski to be Assistant Secretary for Energy for Fossil
Energy, but he's asked that his name be withdrawn.
Mr. Copeland is a senior partner in the law firm of Baker
Botts in Houston, where he heads the firm's energy litigation
practice. He brings to the table 35 years of experience in
complex litigation in all sectors of the energy industry. He's
tried cases involving oil, and natural gas, and coal, and
nuclear, and gasoline, and electricity during the course of his
long career.
We appreciate his willingness to serve in this important
position and welcome the opportunity to consider his
nomination. Let me defer to Senator Domenici for any statement
that he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Let me say thank you for yielding, Mr.
Chairman. We're here this morning to consider the nominee for
an extremely important position in the Department of Energy. As
the Department presses on with its final year to implement
administration policies, it must have experienced and savvy
lawyers heading up its legal team.
Greg Copeland, the nominee before us today, by the
Department's General Counsel to be that, certainly has the
credentials to fill that bill. His extensive litigation
experience in energy matters makes him an able candidate for
this position.
That said, Mr. Copeland will have a daunting task in
rapidly familiarizing himself with the Department and the
plethora of programs that it is charged with implementing. In
that regard, I'm going to thank Chairman Bingaman for
scheduling this hearing so soon after the nomination, and I
hope that we'll quickly be able to report and permit him to
take this job which, for some unknown reason, he desires.
I welcome Mr. Copeland to the committee and look forward to
his testimony. I do mean sincerely that we thank you so much,
and I say I don't understand only in that it is a tough, tough
job for a relatively few number of months, but we need you. So
maybe that's the reason you're doing it. If it is, I'm very
appreciative.
The Chairman. All right. The rules of the committee that
apply to all nominees require that they be sworn in connection
with their testimony. Mr. Copeland, could you stand and raise
your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Copeland. I do.
The Chairman. You may be seated. Before you begin your
statement, I need to ask three questions that we address to
each nominee before this committee.
The first question is, will you be available to appear
before this committee and other congressional committees to
represent departmental positions and respond to issues of
concern to the Congress?
Mr. Copeland. I will.
The Chairman. The second question is, are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments, or interests that could
constitute a conflict of interest, or create the appearance of
such a conflict, should you be confirmed and assume the office
to which you've been nominated by the President?
Mr. Copeland. Mr. Chairman, my investments, my personal
holdings, and other interests have been reviewed both by myself
and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal
Government.
I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of
interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances
thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. All right. The third question, are you
involved or do you have any assets that are held in blind
trust?
Mr. Copeland. No, sir, I do not.
The Chairman. At this point, our tradition is to invite the
nominee to introduce any family member that you have with you,
if you do have family members with you.
Mr. Copeland. I'm sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, my family was
not able to travel with me. I believe they're all, though,
closely looking at the Internet this morning, monitoring what's
going on.
The Chairman. All right. Why don't you go ahead with your
opening statement? Then, I'm sure we'll have some questions.
TESTIMONY OF J. GREGORY COPELAND, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Copeland. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Domenici, other members of the committee and their staff who
are here today, I'm honored to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to become the Department of Energy's
General Counsel.
By way of introduction, I was born and raised in Frederick,
Oklahoma, which is a small farming community in southwest
Oklahoma. I went to Culver Military Academy in high school,
which is in Indiana. I returned to Oklahoma to go to college,
and attended the University of Oklahoma, where I graduated with
a BA degree in business and economics.
I then went south to the University of Texas to attend law
school, which always garners some comments from people about
which football team I prefer. I'm not going to disclose that
today.
Immediately upon graduating from law school in December
1972, I joined Baker & Botts in Houston, Texas. I've been there
ever since. I've only had one job. I'm currently a senior
partner in the firm and a member of the firm's executive
committee.
Of interest to you, perhaps, I first decided that I wanted
to work in the energy field when I was a young law student at
the University of Texas. In the winter of 1971-72, I
experienced first-hand what happens when we have an energy
shortage. At that time, as you well know, the natural gas
pipelines in this country were all merchant pipelines, and they
were having trouble meeting demand because of price caps on
natural gas, which had severely limited supply that they could
obtain from producers.
The problem became so severe that winter that the
university closed, and the students were sent home for several
days. It seemed obvious to me at that point that the United
States was going to continue to face serious energy challenges,
and I decided then that I wanted to be involved in addressing
them.
That decision led me to Houston, what some people call the
energy capital of the world, and a job with one of the world's
leading energy firms. Today, I lead the firm's energy practice.
In the last 35 years, as the chairman noticed, I have appeared
before numerous Federal and State agencies, including the old
Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the SCC, the NRC and others. I've appeared in State
and Federal court in at least 15 different States that I can
account for.
Regardless of where I was or what I was doing, the matters
typically involved the energy business in some way. I've
represented oil and gas producers, large and small, refiners,
pipelines, gas storage companies, utilities, and energy trading
companies. I've dealt with issues relating to oil, gas,
gasoline, natural gas, liquids, uranium, carbon dioxide, coal
bed methane gas, lignite, and nuclear power plants, and
transmission.
While in the last half of my career, at least, I've been a
trial lawyer, mostly. I've always been interested in energy
policy. Those issues go hand in glove, of course, with the
legal problems that I've worked on as a lawyer. I'm very aware
today of the broad array of difficult issues that we must
responsibly confront in order to provide safe, clean, and
economical energy that we need in order to keep our economy
strong.
As I look back 35 years ago, I can say that I was right in
predicting that the energy business would provide interesting
challenges. But I can also say that I greatly underestimated
those challenges. As I look forward from today into the future,
and I think the problems that I foresee are far more complex
than those I foresaw as a young law student in the 1970s.
I'm very honored that President Bush would ask me to join
the Department of Energy at this point in time. I'm confident
that both the President and Secretary Bodman intend to continue
working hard to deal with these complex issues. I trust that
their choice of me is a reflection of their judgment that I
could step in on short notice and assist them and to try to
make a difference. I vow to you that I will do my best to do
that.
In closing, I would like to thank my friends and the
partners in my firm who have supported me in taking this step.
In particular, I must recognize Secretary Baker for his
emphasis to the lawyers in our firm, and indeed to the
profession as a whole, on the need for public service.
Last, but certainly not least, I thank my wife Becky, my
son Todd, and my daughter Rebecca, for their support in this
new endeavor. Like your own families, they have had to endure
weeks and sometimes months of absence over the last 35 years,
but I know they support me in this latest endeavor, because
they do share an awareness of the importance of the job.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Copeland follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Gregory Copeland, Nominee to be General
Counsel, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, Members of the committee, I am
honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee to become
the Department of Energy's General Counsel. By way of introduction, I
was born and raised in Frederick, Oklahoma. I went to high school at
the Culver Military Academy, returned to Oklahoma to attend the
University of Oklahoma, where I graduated with a BA degree in
economics, and then attended the University of Texas School of Law
where I graduated in December, 1972. I joined the firm of Baker Botts
in Houston, Texas in February, 1973, and I have been there ever since.
I am currently a Senior Partner and a member of the Firm's Executive
Committee.
I first decided that I wanted to work in the energy field when I
was a law student. While attending the University of Texas in the
winter of 1971-72, I experienced first-hand what happens when we run
short of energy. At that time, natural gas pipelines were all merchant
pipelines and they were having trouble meeting demand because price
caps on natural gas had severely reduced the supply of gas that was
available to them from natural gas producers. That winter the issue
became so severe that the university closed and sent its students home.
It seemed obvious to me even then that the U.S. would face continued
energy challenges and I decided that I wanted to be involved in
addressing them. That decision led me to Houston, the energy capital of
the world, and a job with one of the world's leading energy firms.
Today, I lead our firm's energy litigation practice.
In the last 35 years I have appeared before numerous state and
federal agencies, including the Federal Power Commission, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities Exchange Commission and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I have appeared in state and federal
courts in more than 15 states.
Regardless of the forum, the matters that I handled have typically
involved a client that was engaged in the energy business in some way.
I have represented oil and gas producers, both large and small,
refiners, pipelines, gas storage companies, utilities and energy
trading companies. I have dealt with issues relating to oil, gas,
gasoline, natural gas liquids, uranium, carbon dioxide, coal bed
methane, and gas, lignite and nuclear power plants.
Throughout my career I have been interested in the energy policy
issues that go hand in glove with the legal problems on which I have
worked. I am very aware of the broad array of difficult issues that we
must responsibly confront today in order to provide the safe, clean and
economical energy needed to keep our economy strong. As I look back on
35 years I can say that I was right in predicting that the energy
business would provide interesting challenges but I can also say that I
greatly underestimated the challenges that lay ahead. And as I look
forward it seems quite apparent that the challenges we face today and
into the future are far more complex than the problems I foresaw as a
young law student in the 1970s.
I am very honored that President Bush would ask me to join the
Department of Energy. I am confident that both the President and
Secretary Bodman intend to continue working hard to deal with these
complex issues, and I trust that their choice is a reflection of their
judgment that could step in on short notice to assist them and to make
a difference. I vow to you that I will do my best to make that happen.
In closing, I would like to thank my friends and the partners in my
firm who have supported me in taking this step. In particular, I must
recognize Secretary Baker for his emphasis to the lawyers in our firm,
and indeed to the profession as a whole, on the need for public
service. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my wife Becky, and my
two children, Todd and Rebecca, for their support in this new endeavor.
Like your families, they have had to endure weeks, and sometimes
months, of absence over the last 35 years, but I know they support me
in this latest endeavor because they share an awareness of the
importance of the job.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me ask a question,
and then defer to Senator Domenici. One issue that will come up
very quickly once you're in this position is the whole issue of
recusal. I think both the recusal policy here in the committee,
but also the Government Ethics Rules, obviously, require you to
recuse yourself from participating, personally and
substantially, in matters involving former clients.
I'm sure you've had several former clients that are very
involved in issues coming before the Department of Energy. How
do you see that affecting your ability to serve in this as head
of the General Counsel's Office there in the Department? How do
you anticipate--how extensive will that problem be? How do you
expect to deal with it?
Mr. Copeland. Based on what I understand to be the ethics
rules, both of the DOE and the Senate, I have gone over those
rules carefully with the Ethics Officer of the DOE, both before
and subsequent to the nomination. Frankly, I've had that
question raised by some of the Senators with whom I've spoken
in the past few weeks.
I candidly don't believe it's going to be a significant
problem. I think that the matters that are going to come before
the Department are not likely to create the kind of conflict
that would just keep me from being effective in the job. But I
have discussed that very carefully with the Ethics Officer, and
went over this again with them yesterday, as a matter of fact,
to make sure that I wasn't--I don't want to take a job and I
can't do anything. It's pointless.
So I hope I'm going to be able to operate effectively. I
know there will be occasions where I have to recuse myself, but
I don't expect that to cripple me in the job.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Same question, but it seems to me, as you
answer it, and as I think about it, we have an awful lot of
issues that are certainly very unique to the implementation of
our new laws, to the implementation of brand-new policies
around here, and I don't see how many of those are going to
require that you not participate because of conflicts of
interest.
I don't believe that's going to happen. But I do trust you
that you understand if it does, you must recuse yourself.
Mr. Copeland. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Senator Domenici. You don't have any doubt about that.
Could I just ask, as a matter of personal information--
obviously, Secretary Bodman has a very big void, and he needs
legal counsel. But just how did it come to you that you might
serve your country in this capacity, pursuant to what you said
Secretary Baker's admonition that you do something?
This seems to me to--for you to jump out of your big
practice for 10 months, service appears very unique. To our
advantage, I would say.
Mr. Copeland. Actually, it goes all the way back to when I
was a young lawyer. I actually worked on licensing a couple of
nuclear plants. Since nobody in my firm knew anything about
that, I was secunded, in effect, to work with a wonderful
gentleman here in Washington, named Jack Newman, who then was
the head of the firm Newman & Holtzinger, and was the Dean of
the Nuclear Licensing Industry.
He was the one that called me last fall and said, ``The
White House is going to be calling you.''
Senator Domenici. Really?
Mr. Copeland. ``Because I've given them your name.'' So, it
came from Jack. Of course, I have tremendous respect for him
and----
Senator Domenici. He must have had for you, also.
Mr. Copeland. I hope he did. So, you know, I certainly
talked with people in my firm, including Secretary Baker, and
public service is part of the fabric of our firm, and I was
encouraged to go ahead. Obviously, by the reason of the fact
that you've asked the question, you know I had some concerns
about it at this point in my career.
Senator Domenici. Of course.
Mr. Copeland. But it did seem to me that the Department
really did need somebody who could come here and get up to
speed on short notice, and that given the uniqueness of my
background, it was hard for me to deny that I was a serious
candidate for that. So here I am.
Senator Domenici. I want to ask one other question. When we
developed and wrote the Energy Policy Act of 2005--which I'm
sure by now you know we did, and it's a rather formidable piece
of legislation, with an awful lot of policy changes for
America. People don't think we did anything, but that law takes
a long time to implement.
One of the provisions in that law has to do with loan
guarantees. Those loan guarantees that now are up--we have $18
billion worth of authority. We don't think it's--I don't think
it's enough, but we got caught at right at the end, and had to
share it with another part of the development, and that's all
right with me, as long as we get to use it.
My question to you, it's been a challenge getting this part
of the law implemented and getting nuclear power going,
although it's doing wonderfully well. Will you commit to us
that you will make it a priority to do everything you can to
expedite implementation of this program?
Mr. Copeland. Yes, sir. I believe very strongly in that
program. I think it's very important, and it does need to be
pushed as hard as it can be pushed.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. I have no further questions.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and
Senator Domenici for scheduling this hearing. Mr. Copeland,
welcome, and I enjoyed our visit the other day in the office.
As we discussed, the first area I'm going to ask you about is
what you would be doing to clean up this mess in terms of
environmental cleanup at Federal facilities and the Federal
contracting debacle.
I don't think you can describe it any other way. At
Hanford, in our part of the country, we've seen wholesale
failure to meet environmental compliance schedules, massive
cost increases, Hanford contractors get the bonuses. According
to the Department's Inspector General, the General Accounting
Office, all of these independent agencies have pretty much said
that these programs are a huge mess.
Now, you, of course, would not be running the cleanup
program, and I understand that to be the case. But you're going
to be the Department's chief legal official, if confirmed, and
certainly environmental compliance agreements are legally
binding agreements. So what I'd like to know, for the purposes
of this morning, is what would you do in this position to
correct this abysmal, really outlandishly awful record at the
Department of poor contracting and environmental compliance?
Mr. Copeland. Thank you, Senator, and likewise, I enjoyed
meeting with you the other day. I appreciate your being here
today. First of all, it probably has gone unnoted that I do
have quite a bit of experience with construction contracts and
litigation in that arena. I know, basically, how complex
projects are run. I know how they get off track, and I know how
to analyze what causes them to get off track.
So I think I could be effective in at least quickly
understanding perhaps some of the problems. It seems to me,
based on the limited amount of time that I have been studying
and preparing to take on this position, that the Department of
Energy is perhaps, to some extent more than other
organizations, very dependent on independent contracts to
perform all the obligations that they have to perform.
I think, given that situation, if I'm accurate in that
assumption, that you need to look at every way possible to
strengthen the oversight of those contractors. That would be
something I would take a hard look at.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask it in a different way, because
you're absolutely right about the independent contractors. If
you're confirmed, I would like you to regularly report to the
chairman, and the ranking minority member, and I, what the
progress is at Hanford. Because, respectfully, we have heard
comments much along the lines you've made and nothing much
happens. They go further in the hole in terms of environmental
compliance. The cost overruns increase, the bonuses continue.
It goes on and on.
So let me ask you, if you would, if confirmed, within 60
days of your confirmation, I'd very much like you to send to
the chairman, Chairman Bingaman, and Senator Domenici, so that
it could be shared with us, what's being done specifically at
Hanford to address these concerns.
Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one additional question?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Wyden. The only other question I have, Mr.
Copeland, again along the lines that we talked about up in the
office, is you represented industry for quite some years. You
represented Shell Oil in a key case where the company agreed to
pay the United States $56 million on underpaid royalties in the
natural gas area.
You represented Reliant in a Clayton Act case brought by
the California Attorney General. This was a settled case,
involving the withholding of power supplies, a variety of
manipulative practices. So now, you would be wearing a
different hat. You were a lawyer, and obviously a very good
one, for the clients that you represented. But now you have a
different set, if confirmed, which essentially means that
consumer interests, ratepayer interests, taxpayer interests,
all be represented.
Tell me what assurances you can give us this morning that
you can take on those new hats at this time.
Mr. Copeland. You're right. It is a different hat. I
respect that, and I understand that, and I would not have taken
this job unless I thought I could fairly represent all the
constituents that the Department of Energy is responsible for.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Mr. Copeland, thank you very much
for being here. We will try to act swiftly to move your
nomination to the Senate floor for consideration. That will
conclude our hearing.
Mr. Copeland. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:09 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of J. Gregory Copeland to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. As we have discussed, I am concerned that there may be
a number of Departmental responsibilities and programs that would
require your recusal because of your prior representation of clients
with interests in the activities. For example, several companies (BP,
Marathon, ExxonMobil) have filed comments with the Department regarding
energy transmission corridors including but not limited to
CO2 sequestration. Other companies, such as Shell, have
significant interests in the operation of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and Oil Shale programs. Please explain whether or not the
following Departmental activities would require your recusal: Section
368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) requires the
Department to participate in the determination of energy corridors on
federal land.
Answer. I have checked with the Department's Designated Agency
Ethics Official and have been advised that the Executive Branch-wide
regulations governing recusals that result from prior employment or
legal representation, as well as the committee's recusal policy, apply
to particular matters involving specific parties in which:
Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of
one year from my resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs
later; or
a former client of mine that I represented within the last
year, is a party or represents a party, for a period of one
year after I last provided service to that client or
confirmation, whichever occurs later; or
I participated personally and substantially as a partner or
employee in a work or service relationship when the matter is
one in which the Department of Energy is a party or has a
substantial interest, for the duration of my service as General
Counsel.
ExxonMobil, while a former client of mine, was not a client that I
represented within the last year. In addition, the Department of Energy
was not a party to, and did not have a substantial interest in, any of
the legal work that I participated personally and substantially in at
Baker Botts.
I have been advised by the Department's Designated Agency Ethics
Official that the determination of energy corridors on federal land is
not a particular matter involving specific parties at this time.
Therefore, the recusal requirements do not apply to any former clients
of mine or to Baker Botts. However, in the event that it does become a
particular matter involving specific parties, I will recuse myself if
(1) Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one
year from my resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or
(2) a former client of mine that I represented within the last year, is
a party or represents a party, for a period of one year after I last
provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever occurs
later.
Question 2. Section 1221 of EPACT 2005 requires the Department to
initiate and coordinate of Federal authorizations for electric
transmission facilities, including the designation of National Interest
Transmission Corridors.
Answer. I have been advised by the Department's Designated Agency
Ethics Official that this initiation and coordination activity is not a
particular matter involving specific parties at this time. Therefore,
the recusal requirements do not apply to any former clients of mine or
to Baker Botts. However, in the event that it does become a particular
matter involving specific parties, I will recuse myself if (1) Baker
Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from my
resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or (2) a former
client of mine that I represented within the last year, is a party or
represents a party, for a period of one year after I last provided
service to that client or my confirmation, whichever occurs later.
Question 3. Section 1222 of EPACT 2005 requires the Department's
Power Marketing Administrations to design and construct new
transmission facilities in National Interest Transmission Corridors.
Answer. I have been advised by the Department's Designated Agency
Ethics Official that the design and construction of new transmission
facilities in National Interest Transmission Corridors is not a
particular matter involving specific parties at this time. Furthermore,
it is unlikely that any of my clients within the last year or Baker
Botts would be involved in this design and construction. However, in
the event that it does become a particular matter involving specific
parties, I will recuse myself from any such particular matters
involving specific parties in which: (1) Baker Botts is a party or
represents a party for a period of one year from my resignation or
confirmation, whichever occurs later; or (2) a former client of mine
that I represented within the last year, is a party or represents a
party, for a period of one year after I last provided service to that
client or my confirmation, whichever occurs later.
Question 4. Operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve including
receipt and exchange of Royalty-in-Kind oil from any or all U.S. leases
and the determination of compliance with the conditions established in
Section 301 of EPACT 2005.
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, Baker Botts is not involved in
particular matters involving specific parties that are related to the
operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or entitlement to
particular volumes of crude oil from particular leases, nor is it
likely to become so involved. However, if this unlikely event occurs, I
will recuse myself from any such particular matters involving specific
parties in which Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a
period of one year from my resignation or confirmation, whichever
occurs later. I also will recuse myself from any such particular
matters involving specific parties in which a former client of mine
that I represented within the last year, is a party or represents a
party, for a period of one year after I last provided service to that
client or my confirmation, whichever occurs later.
Question 5. Establishment and operation of the Oil Shale, Tar
Sands, and Unconventional Fuels Program pursuant to Section 369 of
EPACT 2005.
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, Baker Botts is not involved in
particular matters involving specific parties that are related to the
operation of the Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Unconventional Fuels
Program, nor is it likely to become so involved. However, if this
unlikely event occurs, I will recuse myself from any such particular
matters involving specific parties in which Baker Botts is a party or
represents a party for a period of one year from my resignation or
confirmation, whichever occurs later. I also will recuse myself from
any such particular matters involving specific parties in which a
former client of mine that I represented within the last year, is a
party or represents a party, for a period of one year after I last
provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever occurs
later.