at? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3.. .E Washington, 0.020480 3% a mr?q 6?45? OFFICE OF MAR 3 2013 GENERALCDUNSEL MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of Lease Agreement Under the Federal Ethics Regulations Regarding Gifts FROM: Kevin s. Minoli 1 Designated Agency thies Of?cial Principal Deputy General Counsel T0: Matthew Z. Leopold General Counsel As requested, the Ethics Of?ce reviewed the lease agreement entered into by E. Scott Pruitt (TENANT) and 1Vicki Hart (LANDLORD) under the federal ethics regulations regarding gifts. The regulations issued by the Office ofGovernment Ethics are clear that if a federal employee pays market value for something, it is by de?nition not a gift under those regulations. 5 C.F.R. from the de?nition of gift ?[a]nything for which market value is paid by the employee?). Market value for rental apartments is commonly thought of in terms of rental cost per month. Under the terms of the lease, if the space was utilized for one 30-day month, then the rental cost would be $1500, which is a reasonable market value. The lease authorized use by the Administrator and his immediate family, speci?cally including his spouse and children, and consistent with that provision of the lease his immediate family did stay there when they were in Washington, DC. The lease did not require payment when the property was not utilized. Neither of these two provisions render the rental cost under the lease as something other than market value. Therefore, entering into the lease was consistent with federal ethics regulations regarding gifts, and use of the property in accordance with the lease agreement did not constitute a gift as defined in those regulations. "' Ringel, Aaron Required Baptist, Erik Required Lyons, Troy Required Bowman, Liz Required Darwin, Henry Optional Opalski, Dan Optional Beck, Nancy Requjred Fr eire, JP Required Wise, Louise Optional Etzel, Ruth Required? Grantham,. Nancy Optional Ya mada, Richard (Yujiro) Required Forsgr en, Lee Optional Ryan Jackson (jackson.ryan@epa.gov) <) ackson. ryan@epa .gov> Required Shaw, Betsy Required Brittany Bolen (bolen.brittany@epa.gov) Required Wagner, Kenneth Requ ired Time 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM Subject Meet with OGE Reps: Sean Trauschke, Paul Renfrow and George Baker Location Administrator's Office Show Time As Busy Request by George Baker OGE's DC Counsel POC George Baker [t!@mt~mllloo OGE folks will be in DC for EEi - and also requested that he speak at the event on Tuesday. Attendees Nam e Attendance (b )(6) Pruitt Cal Acct o(b)(6) Pruitt Cal Acct Organizer Jackson, Ryan <)ackson.ryan@epa.gov> Required 137 EPA-17-0074-A-000070 010213245 67789 118 889 1 76 91 91 4 19 6 1 9 6 868 ÿ"# ÿ$ÿ"% & ' ()*++ÿ-./0++ÿ1*.ÿ2++*.345ÿ6434.78ÿ9:;<ÿ;;<:=> ' ? ' "@ÿ? ' AB C' D)+ÿ9;Eÿ9:;< FG H4)ÿ=;Eÿ9:;< I J A%K ÿALÿ "MN "Aÿ " ' &% "I ÿ I J A%K ÿALÿ "MN "Aÿ " ' &% "ILÿ@OPQÿFRQÿSGTTGUOVWÿOVSGXYZFOGVÿSGXÿOVM[OV\ÿ]GVFXO^_FOGV`ÿGSÿYGXQÿFRZVÿabcÿOVÿFRQÿZWWXQWZFQÿSXGYÿGVQÿ̀G_X]Qÿ\_XOVW FRQÿXQdGXFOVWÿdQXOG\Lÿ VÿZ\\OFOGVÿFGÿXQdGXFOVWÿ]GVFXO^_FOGV`ÿSXGYÿ^_`OVQ``Q`ÿGVÿI]RQ\_TQÿ#eÿWOPQÿFRQÿSGTTGUOVWÿOVSGXYZFOGVÿSGXÿGUVQX`ÿdT_`ÿdQX]QVFZWQÿGS GUVQX`ROdLÿ#T̀GeÿOVSGXYZFOGVÿS_XVÒRQ\ÿGVÿI]RQ\_TQÿ&ÿSGXÿW_ZXZVFGX`ÿGXÿQV\GX`QX`ÿGSÿTGZV`ÿ̀RG_T\ÿ^Qÿ\Ò]TG`Q\ÿZWZOVÿdT_`ÿZYG_VFÿW_ZXZVFQQ\ÿGXÿQV\GX`Q\L "ZF_XQÿGS GFZTÿ]ZYdZOWVMFGM\ZFQ "ZYQeÿFRO]`ÿ GYYÒ`OGV ]]_dZFOGVÿZV\ÿQYdTGiQXÿGX AZFQÿZ]]QdFQ\ #YG_VFÿGS V_Y^QXÿfOSÿZÿ]GYYOFFQQge dXOV]OdZTÿOVFQXQ`FÿGXÿdXOV]OdZT f]ZV\O\ZFQÿ]GYYOFFQQ`ÿGX ]GVFXO^_FOGVÿGXÿSZOX ]GVFXO^_FOGV YZX[QFÿPZT_Q fAQ`]XO^Qg Z\\XQ``eÿZV\ÿhÿGSÿGUVQX`ROd ^_`OVQ``ÿZ]FOPOFiÿfOSÿVG iQZXMFGM\ZFQÿfGFRQX`g fOSÿ^_`OVQ``ÿÒÿXQdGXFQ\ÿGV QYdTGiQXg `]RQ\_TQÿ#g jkÿ(lmnmoÿp2qlÿÿ r:;ÿ>+sÿ(+kÿotÿ t7us03v+*3EÿHwÿ9:::; wp2xqy2oÿzÿwmDÿ D)+ÿ9;Eÿ9:;< tx{{x2y(ÿ ÿjmo(moE -{{w Z GFZTÿOVM[OV\ÿGPQXÿabcÿOVÿFRQÿZWWXQWZFQÿ\_XOVWÿdQXOG\ ^ GFZTÿOVM[OV\ÿ]GVFXO^_FOGV`ÿGSÿabcÿGXÿTQ``ÿOVÿFRQÿZWWXQWZFQÿdQXOG\ ]KQ``ÿZYG_VF`ÿW_ZXZVFQQ\ÿGXÿQV\GX`Q\ÿGVÿZÿTGZVÿXQdGXFQ\ÿGVÿ̀]RQ\_TQÿ&ÿZV\ ]GVFXO^_FOGV`ÿZFFXO^_FQ\ÿFGÿGUVQX`ÿGSÿZÿ^_`OVQ``ÿ]GVFXO^_FGXÿXQdGXFQ\ÿGV `]RQ\_TQÿ# ZTÿOVM[OV\ÿ]GVFXO^_FOGV`ÿ\_XOVWÿdQXOG\ÿfZÿÿ^ÿMÿ]ÿQVFQXÿGVÿTOVQÿeÿ]GT_YV \ ZGF g ÿÿ4ÿ 6 ÿÿ 143 67789 118 889 1 76 91 91 4 19 6 1 9 6 868 };E~;~k<=1/3.70u03v q4)4+0*3 };E~;~k<=ÿ }:k:: }:k:: };E~;~k<= };E~;~k<= 414 010213245 6789 ' ÿ )ÿ* # $ ÿ ÿ ,-./ÿ1234/5ÿ673/8294/273.:85652;/. 85;78/ÿ <=>ÿ7?.?.@AA?BCC>Dÿ6EÿFBÿ-AA?DÿGÿHCIHIHJKÿÿÿÿL-MÿN>CJOÿJBHI>PCJ Q# ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ # # ÿ ÿ"# ÿ 6>I8ÿ R*9Sÿ 56ÿ7LL265ÿ4.5ÿ73,T 9 8143 H?67112//55ÿ3-15ÿÿ UVWXXÿYZ[\XXÿ]WZÿ^XXWZ_`aÿb`_`Zcdÿefgh B?-ii85..ÿNj@klmnÿojpÿqrnmmrOÿÿ YsÿtWuÿefvw 62/TDÿ./-/5Dÿojpÿx2;ÿ67i5ÿÿ 3@klmnÿoqqjmpÿlÿ5rEqÿ6kk?ÿ sydczW{cÿ \Xa}ÿs~ÿwgfgefvw gghfwv ?6-3i2i-/5ÿ67112//55.ÿ73,T?ÿL@ÿjokmÿÿojppormÿÿ cZÿUVWXXÿYZ[\XX ÿ/Amÿÿ8mAnrÿ -kmjpmp >?,-./ÿ1234/5ÿ673/8294/273.ÿ78ÿ,7-3ÿ;87655i.ÿmÿrEmÿjÿjnkorjÿnÿjrnl@rjqÿnÿojÿAnmmpqÿÿJCCÿnÿknmÿjÿrEm onmormÿomArmpÿnkÿjmÿq@nmÿormnÿrEmÿoqrÿpoÿÿrEmÿnmAnrjÿAmnpÿnÿoÿAnmImmrjÿnmAnrDÿl@rÿlmnmÿrEmÿjmrÿmmrjÿnÿEEÿrEmÿAnmI mmrjÿnmAnrÿoqÿp@m?ÿ;nnÿnmAnrmpÿjrnl@rjqÿnÿojÿAnmmpqÿjmmpÿjrÿlmÿj@pmp? 3okmÿojpÿoppnmqqÿÿjrnl@rnDÿmjpmnÿn 7@AorjÿojpÿmkAmnÿnÿAnjAoÿjrmnmqriormÿjrnl@rj -k@jrÿ mjpjÿjqrr@rj nÿAnjAoÿl@qjmqqÿorrÿ<ÿjÿmkAmnKoqÿomArmpÿn jrnl@rjÿn pormÿÿoj oj ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿUÿ^ fgÿvXzÿUXÿ cz\_XW_}ÿ ÿefffg ^ ^ÿÿ sÿ ¡¡^ Uÿ¢ÿU}ÿY¡¡ ÿÿ gf£eg£efgh ¤g}¥g¥hw ÿ /roÿoqrÿkj@rmÿjrnl@rjqÿnÿojÿAnmmpqÿnmAnrmp HDFHF?> J?6mnrorjÿ/ÿrEmÿlmqrÿÿkÿlmqrÿ¦jmpmÿojpÿlmmDÿrEmÿolmÿqÿoÿrn@mÿojpÿnnmrÿkAorj? /nmoq@nmn§qÿnÿimA@rÿ/nmoq@nmn§qÿ.jor@nmÿ iorm <nÿmmrnjÿqjor@nmÿjÿm@ÿrEmnmK M YcXZ\V\cÿbcX̀ M sVXÿeh}ÿefgh ÿÿ ÿ ÿ 11 1 1 1 8 1 8 448205 !"# !$ 5%4&5 ÿ 414 LD-2 Disclosure Form Clerk of the House of Representatives Legislative Resource Center B-106 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records 232 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/lobby LOBBYING REPORT Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page 1. Registrant Name ✔ Organization/Lobbying Firm Williams and Jensen, PLLC Self Employed Individual 2. Address Address1 City 701 8th Street, NW Address2 Washington State DC Zip Code 20001 Country State Zip Code Country USA 3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2) City 4a. Contact Name Mrs. TJ Hartten 7. Client Name Self b. Telephone Number c. E-mail 2026598201 tjhartten@wms-jen.com 5. Senate ID# 41454-3476 Check if client is a state or local government or instrumentality 6. House ID# 307710228 CHENIERE ENERGY TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2017 Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) ✔ Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) 9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report Termination Date 10. Check if this is a Termination Report Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) 11. No Lobbying Issue Activity INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 12. Lobbying INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: 13. Organizations EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: Less than $5,000 Less than $5,000 $5,000 or more ✔ $ 20,000.00 $5,000 or more $ Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See related income from the client (including all payments to the registrant by any instructions for description of options. other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code Signature Digitally Signed By: TJ Hartten Date 4/12/2017 12:16:35 PM https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=9E45A72F-88FC-444F-8D0A-C57C417209CB&filingTypeID=51[3/30/2018 8:40:32 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code ENG 16. Specific lobbying issues Issues related to the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), approval of LNG exports and export facilities. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix Covered Official Position (if applicable) Frank Vlossak Anthony Roda Eric Stewart Melinda Maxfield J. Steven Hart Erin Mullen Matthew Hoekstra Joel Oswald George Baker ✔ 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above New Check if None Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed. 20. Client new address Address City State Zip Code Country State Zip Code Country 21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20) City 22. New General description of client’s business or activities LOBBYIST UPDATE 23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client First Name Last Name Suffix 1 2 First Name Last Name Suffix 3 4 https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=9E45A72F-88FC-444F-8D0A-C57C417209CB&filingTypeID=51[3/30/2018 8:40:32 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form ISSUE UPDATE 24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS 25. Add the following affiliated organization(s) Internet Address: Address Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) Street Address Name City State/Province Zip Country City State Country 26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client 1 2 3 FOREIGN ENTITIES 27. Add the following foreign entities: Address Name Principal place of business (city and state or country) Street Address City State/Province Country Amount of contribution for lobbying activities Ownership percentage in client City State Country % 28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization 1 3 5 2 4 6 https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=9E45A72F-88FC-444F-8D0A-C57C417209CB&filingTypeID=51[3/30/2018 8:40:32 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form Clerk of the House of Representatives Legislative Resource Center B-106 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records 232 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/lobby LOBBYING REPORT Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page 1. Registrant Name ✔ Organization/Lobbying Firm Williams & Jensen, PLLC. Self Employed Individual 2. Address Address1 City 701 8th Street, NW Address2 Washington Suite 500 State DC Zip Code 20001 Country State Zip Code Country USA 3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2) City 4a. Contact Name Ms. Rachel Kessinger 7. Client Name Self b. Telephone Number c. E-mail 2029735941 rbkessinger@wms-jen.com 5. Senate ID# 41454-595 Check if client is a state or local government or instrumentality 6. House ID# 307710034 OGE ENERGY CORP TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2013 Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) 9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report Termination Date 10. Check if this is a Termination Report ✔ Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) 11. No Lobbying Issue Activity INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 12. Lobbying INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: 13. Organizations EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: Less than $5,000 Less than $5,000 $5,000 or more ✔ $ 90,000.00 $5,000 or more $ Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See related income from the client (including all payments to the registrant by any instructions for description of options. other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code Signature Digitally Signed By: George Baker, Principal Date 07/19/2013 https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E01D1B16-CD17-46D5-A973-7D4BDE93E444&filingTypeID=60[3/30/2018 8:34:17 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code ENV 16. Specific lobbying issues Coal ash characterization under EPA RCRA regulations. Legislation re: coal ash residuals. EPA greenhouse gas regulation development. EPA regional haze enforcement. Potential listing of Lesser Prairie Chicken by FWS under Endangered Species Act. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE, Interior - Dept of (DOI) 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix George Baker 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Covered Official Position (if applicable) New ✔ Check if None https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E01D1B16-CD17-46D5-A973-7D4BDE93E444&filingTypeID=60[3/30/2018 8:34:17 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code TAX 16. Specific lobbying issues Tax reform. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix George Baker David Franasiak Christopher Hatcher 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Covered Official Position (if applicable) ✔ New Check if None https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E01D1B16-CD17-46D5-A973-7D4BDE93E444&filingTypeID=60[3/30/2018 8:34:17 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code CAW 16. Specific lobbying issues EPA proposed rule on 316(b) 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix George Baker 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Covered Official Position (if applicable) New ✔ Check if None https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E01D1B16-CD17-46D5-A973-7D4BDE93E444&filingTypeID=60[3/30/2018 8:34:17 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code HOM 16. Specific lobbying issues Cybersecurity Executive Order; H.R. 624. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix George Baker Covered Official Position (if applicable) New ✔ 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed. 20. Client new address Address City State Zip Code Country State Zip Code Country 21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20) City 22. New General description of client’s business or activities LOBBYIST UPDATE 23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client First Name Last Name Suffix 1 2 First Name Last Name Suffix 3 4 ISSUE UPDATE 24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS 25. Add the following affiliated organization(s) Internet Address: https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E01D1B16-CD17-46D5-A973-7D4BDE93E444&filingTypeID=60[3/30/2018 8:34:17 PM] LD-2 Disclosure Form Address Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) Street Address Name City State/Province Zip Country City State Country 26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client 1 2 3 FOREIGN ENTITIES 27. Add the following foreign entities: Address Name Principal place of business (city and state or country) Street Address City State/Province Country Amount of contribution for lobbying activities Ownership percentage in client City State Country % 28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization 1 3 5 2 4 6 https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E01D1B16-CD17-46D5-A973-7D4BDE93E444&filingTypeID=60[3/30/2018 8:34:17 PM] 4/14/2014 https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php COMMITTEE NAME & NUMBER Scott Pruitt For Attorney General 2014 114038 REPORTING PERIOD: FROM Jul 01, 2013 to Sep 30, 2013 SCHEDULE A. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS from persons other than committees SCHEDULE A. CONTRIBUTIONS. Giv e the follow ing information for the contributions of more than $50 in the aggregate from a person other than a committee during the reporting period. In addition to reporting them on schedule B, list loans from persons other than committees. Name and address of contributor Occupation and employer or Date accepted Amount of Nature of contribution principal business activ ity contribution [cash or w ritten (if no employer) instrument] CURTIS DAVIDSON 205 Stonewall Ardmore, OK 73401 W. PRESTON BALDWIN 30 M ilbank Ave. Greenwich, CT 06830 KEVIN HERN 8630 S. Peoria Ave. Tulsa, OK 74132 BOB KHAJEHNOURI 14712 DALEA DR. OKLAHOM A CITY, OK 73142 BOB KHAJEHNOURI 14712 DALEA DR. OKLAHOM A CITY, OK 73142 M ARIO M AX FAIRCHILD 5800 Country Club Terrace Edmond, OK 73003 STEVEN P. HUDIBURG 6000 Tinker Diagonal M idwest City, OK 73110 DAVID J COOK P. O. Box 784 Laverne, OK 73848 BRUCE T BENBROOK P. O. Box 1008 Woodward, OK 73802-1008 ANN CAM ERON 3408 Rena Dawn Ln. Edmond, OK 73013 NEVYLE R CABLE 16425 Loop 56 Okmulgee, OK 74447 PAUL H. CORNELL 5628 E. 115th St. Tulsa, OK 74137 GREGG L VANDAVEER 12024 Ashbury Ct. Oklahoma City, OK 73170 STEVE M ERRILL 1812 Highlands Landing Edmond, OK 73013 E. KEITH M ITCHELL 37 Doyle Dr. Shawnee, OK 74801-8718 DAVID E RAINBOLT 6226 N. Riviera Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73112 JOHN LEWIS M ASSEY P. O. Box 130 BANKER Sep 30, 2013 FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST OF ARDM ORE PRESIDENT & CEO Sep 30, 2013 CENTERPOINT 360, LLC 250.00Written Instrument 250.00 1,000.00Credit 1,000.00 CEO FIRSTRIKE, LLC Sep 30, 2013 1,000.00Credit 1,000.00 SELF EM PLOYED BOB NOURI Sep 30, 2013 2,500.00Credit 5,000.00 SELF EM PLOYED BOB NOURI Sep 30, 2013 2,500.00Credit 5,000.00 OWNER AUTO M AX Sep 30, 2013 5,000.00Written Instrument 5,000.00 PRESIDENT HUDIBURG INVESTM ENTS PRESIDENT / CEO BANK OF LAVERNE Sep 30, 2013 5,000.00Written Instrument 5,000.00 Sep 26, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 26, 2013 200.00Written Instrument 200.00 26, 2013 200.00Credit 200.00 26, 2013 200.00Written Instrument 200.00 26, 2013 250.00Written Instrument 250.00 PRESIDENT/CEO SOONER STATE BANK Sep 26, 2013 250.00Written Instrument 250.00 SVP GATHERING & PROCESSING OG&E ENERGY CORP. COO ENABLE M IDSTREAM Sep 26, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 Sep 26, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 CEO BANCFIRST Sep 26, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 1,500.00 BANKER FIRST UNITED Sep 26, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 1,500.00 CHAIRM AN Sep STOCK EXCHANGE BANK COM M UNITY Sep VOLUNTEER SELF BANKER Sep FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST OF OKM ULGEE PRESIDENT Sep CITIZENS BANKSHARES https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php 1/5 4/14/2014 P. O. Box 130 Durant, OK 74702-0130 R. M . BEVERAGE 1908 Oak Valley Terrace Edmond, OK 73025 ERIC M BOHNE 9836 S. 77th E. Ave. Tulsa, OK 74133 GREG L M ASSEY P. O. Box 130 Durant, OK 74702 KEN BASS P. O. Box 100 Wilburton, OK 74578 DOUG ALLEN P. O. Box 13337 Oklahoma City, OK 73113 BILL M ZALOUDEK P. O. Box 187 Kremlin, OK 73753 RICHARD LANG 5454 Heyward Square Pl. M arietta, GA 30068 STEVE BURRAGE P. O. Box 671 Antlers, OK 74523 DAVID BURRAGE P. O. Box 960 Atoka, OK 74525 DAVID G ALBERT 3169 St. Charles Pl. Ellicott City, M D 21042 JERROD E M OSER 15300 N. M ustang Rd. Piedmont, OK 73078-9677 STEVEN D CRALL 19532 Talavera Ln. Edmond, OK 73012 M ELODY M ARTIN 15104 Himalaya Ridge Edmond, OK 73013 PATRICK D. OR JAN F. SHORE 3815 M arked Tree Dr. Edmond, OK 73013 GENE FRYAR P. O. Box 129 Ardmore, OK 73402-0129 PETER M DAY 2709 SW 135th Oklahoma City, OK 73170 RONALD GRIFFIN 6201 NE 113th St. Edmond, OK 73013 RANDY LEWIS 16613 Sunny Hollow Rd. Edmond, OK 73012 SCOTT M ILANOWSKI 2713 NE 133rd St. Edmond, OK 73013 ROY (RAE) R RICE FIRST UNITED https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php PRESIDENT & CEO Sep 26, 2013 OKLAHOM A BANKER'S ASSOCIATION CEO / CHAIRM AN Sep 26, 2013 SECURITY BANK TULSA BANKER Sep 26, 2013 FIRST UNITED BANK 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 BANKING Sep 26, 2013 WILBURTON STATE BANK GENERAL COUNSEL Sep 26, 2013 STATE OF OKLAHOM A 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 FARM SUPPLIES SELF EM PLOYED Sep 26, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 SVP M ARKETING & SALES COM CAST CABLE BANKER FIRSTBANK Sep 26, 2013 1,000.00Credit 1,000.00 Sep 26, 2013 2,500.00Written Instrument 2,500.00 PRESIDENT / CEO FIRSTBANK Sep 26, 2013 2,500.00Written Instrument 2,500.00 VP EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Sep 09, 2013 SEXAT CORP. 250.00Written Instrument 250.00 DIRECTOR CORP. HEALTH & SAFETY OG&E TAX M ANAGER OG&E ENERGY Sep 05, 2013 75.00Written Instrument 75.00 Sep 05, 2013 75.00Written Instrument 75.00 ENV. AFFAIRS M ANAGER OG&E ENERGY CORP. ATTORNEY OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 COM M . AFF. M GR. ARDM ORE OG&E ENERGY CORP. DIRECTOR TECH SERVICES OG&E M ANAGER OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 M ANAGEM ENT OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 DIRECTOR OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 LOBBYIST Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php 2/5 4/14/2014 6209 N. M idwest Blvd. Edmond, OK 73034 LEON HOWELL 3212 Olde Bridge Rd. M oore, OK 73160 KATHLEEN A O'SHEA 7001 NW 161st St. Edmond, OK 73013 THOM AS M M CCURDY, III 1115 Parkview Circle Purcell, OK 73080 ROBERT J BURCH 13981 S. Anderson Rd. Arcadia, OK 73007 IRBY CLARY 1492 Augusta Dr. Ada, OK 74820 BRYAN J SCOTT 301 N. Walker Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 TAM M Y TURNIPSEED 1708 Chickasha Circle Edmond, OK 73013 TERENA BOYER 3304 Wauwinet Way Norman, OK 73071 DONNIE O. JONES 23220 Running Deer Trl. Edmond, OK 73025 M ERVIN PARKHURST 7500 S. Date Pl. Broken Arrow, OK 74011 ROBERT GOTTSHALL 803 Amity Ln. El Reno, OK 73036 M ARVIN E VAN BEBBER 1702 Windsor Pl. Oklahoma City, OK 73116 M ATT JOHNSON 12636 Peppertree Pl. Oklahoma City, OK 73142 JAM ES B SWICKEY P. O. Box 54882 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 ROBERT KOENIG 1625 Exeter Ct. Oklahoma City, OK 73159 JOHN D RHEA 3900 Hatterly Lane Norman, OK 73072 CRISTINA FERNANDEZ M CQUISTION 3900 N. Harvey Parkway Oklahoma City, OK 73118 PATRICIA D HORN 7350 Bayliner Launch Edmond, OK 73013 JEAN CONSTANT LEGER, JR. 2119 Brookhaven Dr. https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php OG&E ENERGY CORP. PLANNING ENGINEER OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 M ANAGER OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 REGULATORY RELATIONS OG&E DIRECTOR POWER SUPPLY SERVICES OG&E M ANAGER OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 DIRECTOR, PRICING & Sep 05, 2013 LOAD RESEARCH OG&E ENGINEERING Sep 05, 2013 OG&E 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 DIRECTOR OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 M ANAGING DIRECTOR Sep 05, 2013 POWER PLANT OPERATIONS OG&E RETIRED Sep 05, 2013 RETIRED 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 100.00Credit 100.00 DIRECTOR OG&E Sep 05, 2013 100.00Written Instrument 100.00 DIRECTOR OG&E Sep 05, 2013 125.00Written Instrument 125.00 CPA OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 200.00Written Instrument 200.00 BANKER VALLIANCE BANK Sep 05, 2013 200.00Written Instrument 200.00 M ANAGEM ENT OG&E Sep 05, 2013 200.00Written Instrument 200.00 ATTORNEY OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 250.00Written Instrument 250.00 VP STRATEGIC PLANNING & CIO OG&E Sep 05, 2013 300.00Written Instrument 300.00 EXECUTIVE OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 ENGINEER OG&E Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php 3/5 4/14/2014 Edmond, OK 73034 JERRY A. PEACE 3820 Old Forest Lane Oklahoma City, OK 73131 WILLIAM J BULLARD 1900 Preston Pl. Edmond, OK 73013 GARY HUNERYAGER 4213 Tamarisk Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 KIM BER SHOOP 10300 Berrywood Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73151 SCOTT FORBES 1109 Outabounds Dr. Edmond, OK 73034 BRIAN ALFORD 4804 NW 159th Edmond, OK 73013 JESSE B. LANGSTON 4401 NE 88th Oklahoma City, OK 73131 M AX J. M YERS 3325 Findhorn Dr. Edmond, OK 73034 JOSEPH L. 'LEW' M EIBERGEN 1508 Oak Hill Circle Enid, OK 73703 USHA M ARIA TURNER 14356 Terrazza Crossing Edmond, OK 73034 DONALD R ROWLETT 2608 W. Country Club Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73116 M IKE M ATHEWS 733 Villa Ave. Yukon, OK 73099 PHILIP L CRISSUP 216 W. M eade Dr. Yukon, OK 73099 PAUL L RENFROW 8901 Oakmont Circle Oklahoma City, OK 73131 ROBERT SEAN TRAUSCHKE 11925 Stonemill Rd. Oklahoma City, OK 73131-7501 PETER B DELANEY 6901 Avondale Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73116 ERICA SECHRIST 2000 Stokes Ln. Nashville, TN 37215 VIRGIL JURGENSM EYER 1920 7th Ave. NE M iami, OK 74354 LOREN L. M ONROE 1733 Fairview Ave. M cLean, VA 22101 BGR PAC https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php EXECUTIVE OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 ATTORNEY OG&E ENERGY Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 VP INTERNAL AUDITS Sep 05, 2013 OG&E ENERGY CORP. 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 ATTORNEY OG&E Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 ACCOUNTANT OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 CORPORATE COM M UNICATIONS OG&E ENERGY CORP. VICE PRESIDENT OG&E Sep 05, 2013 500.00Credit 500.00 Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 TREASURER OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 PRESIDENT JOHNSTON ENTERPRISES ENGINEER OG&E ENERGY Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 ACCOUNTANT OG&E Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 VP POWER DELIVERY OG&E Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 ENGINEER OG&E Sep 05, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 VP PUBLIC AFFAIRS OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,000.00 EXECUTIVE OG&E ENERGY CORP. Sep 05, 2013 2,500.00Written Instrument 2,500.00 CHAIRM AN, PRESIDENT & CEO OG&E ENERGY CORP. DIRECTOR GOVERNM ENT AFFAIRS ADVANCE AM ERICA FRESH M USHROOM FARM ER J-M FARM S, INC. PRINCIPAL BGR GOVERNM ENT AFFAIRS Qualified Committee FEC Sep 05, 2013 3,500.00Written Instrument 3,500.00 https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php Aug 26, 2013 150.00Credit 150.00 Aug 26, 2013 250.00Credit 250.00 Aug 21, 2013 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,500.00 Aug 21, 2013 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,000.00 4/5 4/14/2014 P. O. Box 14416 Washington, DC 20044 C. BRUCE LAWRENCE 18809 Hunter Creek Edmond, OK 73012 M ARC A. TOPAZ 6101 Joshua Rd. Fort Washington, PA 19034 M ICHAEL T BEATTIE 153 Janine Way West Grove, PA 19390 PAGE C FAULK 3802 Porter St. NW, Apt. 30 Washington, DC 20016 https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php PAC EXECUTIVE INTEGRIS HEALTH Jul 31, 2013 500.00Written Instrument 500.00 PARTNER Jul 22, 2013 KESSLER, TOPAZ, M ETLZER, CHECK, LLP PRESIDENT Jul 22, 2013 CASH CUE, LLC 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,000.00 1,250.00Written Instrument 1,250.00 ATTORNEY Jul 18, 2013 US CHAM BER INSTITUTE FOR LEGAL REFORM EXECUTIVE Jul 09, 2013 SPD FINANCIAL 250.00Written Instrument 250.00 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,000.00 Jul 09, 2013 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,000.00 Jul 09, 2013 2,500.00Written Instrument 2,500.00 Jul 01, 2013 1,000.00Written Instrument 1,000.00 Jul 01, 2013 1,250.00Written Instrument 1,250.00 ROBERT A. GARRETT 5201 Kingston Park 6-361 Knoxville, TN 37919 JERE M ERVIN EXECUTIVE 1116 Safety Harbor Cove SPD FINANCIAL Old Hickory, TN 37138 S. M ARCELLA BUTLER HUM AN RESOURCES 3817 W. 4th St. THINK FINANCE Ft. Worth, TX 76107 WILLIAM STUART OR LINDA OIL, GAS & ENERGY M ITCHELL PRICE COM PANY 113 E. 22nd St. SELF-EM PLOYED Tulsa, OK 74114 ROBERT E. HEALY EXECUTIVE 6709 W. 199th St., Suite 115 M ACFARLANE GROUP Overland Park, KS 66209-2013 REFUNDS ONLY: Name and address Occupation and employer or Date refunded of contributor principal business activ ity receiv ing refund (if no employer) (a) Total Contributions ov er $50 in the aggregate (itemized abov e) during reporting period (b) Total contributions of $50 or less in the aggregate during reporting period Refunded amount Reason for refund 59,675.00 730.00 Number of contributors making contributions of $50 or less [# of persons] 16 (c) Less contributions from lenders also reported on schedule B (d) TOTAL contributions during reporting period [(a) + (b) - (c); enter on line 6, column (a)] Adj usted total .00 60,405.00 EC FORM C-1R schedule A [REV.4/12] https://www.ok.gov/ethics/crs/c1r/schedule_a/view_sched_a.php 5/5 Appellate Case: 12-9526 Document: 01018799575 Date Filed: 02/24/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA, and OKLAHOMA INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS, an unincorporated association, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and LISA P. JACKSON, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ____________ PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15, the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers, hereby petition for review of the final rule of the respondents United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, published in the Federal Register at 76 Fed. Reg. 81,728 (Dec. 27, 2011) entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Appellate Case: 12-9526 Document: 01018799575 Date Filed: 02/24/2012 Page: 2 Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations" (Attached as Exhibit “A”) Respectfully submitted, E. SCOTT PRUITT Attorney General State of Oklahoma By: S/ P. Clayton Eubanks P. Clayton Eubanks, OBA #16648 Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bates, OBA #15672 Chief, Public Protection Unit Patrick Wyrick, OBA #21874 Solicitor General of Oklahoma Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone (405) 522-8992 Fax: (405) 522-0085 Tom.Bates@oag.ok.gov Patrick.Wyrick@oag.ok.gov Clayton.Eubanks@oag.ok.gov /S/ Michael Graves Michael Graves, OBA #3539 Thomas P. Schroedter, OBA #7988 Hall Estill, Attorneys at Law 320 South Boston Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 918-594-0443 Fax 918-594-0505 mgraves@hallestill.com tschroedter@hallestill.com February 23, 2012 Appellate Case: 12-9526 Document: 01018799575 Date Filed: 02/24/2012 Page: 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA, and OKLAHOMA INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS, an unincorporated association, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and LISA P. JACKSON, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ____________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I hereby certify that on this_____ day of February, 2012 a copy of the foregoing Petition for Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule entitled "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations" was sent by United States first class mail to: Appellate Case: 12-9526 Document: 01018799575 Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Correspondence Control Unit Office of General Counsel (2311) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 The Honorable Eric Holder Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 S/ P. Clayton Eubanks P. Clayton Eubanks Date Filed: 02/24/2012 Page: 4 LD-2 Disclosure Form Clerk of the House of Representatives Legislative Resource Center B-106 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records 232 Hart Building Washington, DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/lobby LOBBYING REPORT Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page 1. Registrant Name ? Organization/Lobbying Firm Williams and Jensen, PLLC Self Employed Individual 2. Address Address1 City 701 8th Street, NW Address2 Washington State DC Zip Code 20001 Country State Zip Code Country USA 3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2) City 4a. Contact Name Mrs. TJ Hartten 7. Client Name Self b. Telephone Number c. E-mail 2026598201 tjhartten@wms-jen.com 5. Senate ID# 41454-1573 Check if client is a state or local government or instrumentality 6. House ID# 307710141 ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC. (FKA ENBRIDGE PIPELINES/LAKEHEAD PIPELINE) TYPE OF REPORT 8. Year 2017 Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) ? Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) 9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report Termination Date 10. Check if this is a Termination Report Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) 11. No Lobbying Issue Activity INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 12. Lobbying INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: 13. Organizations EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: Less than $5,000 Less than $5,000 $5,000 or more ? $ 50,000.00 $5,000 or more $ Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See related income from the client (including all payments to the registrant by any instructions for description of options. other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code Signature Digitally Signed By: TJ Hartten Date 4/19/2017 3:20:38 PM https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4B2F77-AA32-45CC-87E3-EDA202C885B6&filingTypeID=51[4/1/2018 10:20:14 AM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code FUE 16. Specific lobbying issues Issues related to Canadian oil sands. Issues affecting pipelines and construction of new pipelines. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Energy - Dept of, Transportation - Dept of (DOT), State - Dept of (DOS) 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix David Franasiak Frank Vlossak George Baker 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Covered Official Position (if applicable) ? New Check if None https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4B2F77-AA32-45CC-87E3-EDA202C885B6&filingTypeID=51[4/1/2018 10:20:14 AM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code ENG 16. Specific lobbying issues Energy issues that impact pipeline safety issues. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix David Franasiak Frank Vlossak 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Covered Official Position (if applicable) ? New Check if None https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4B2F77-AA32-45CC-87E3-EDA202C885B6&filingTypeID=51[4/1/2018 10:20:14 AM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code TAX 16. Specific lobbying issues Tax Reform. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix David Franasiak 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Covered Official Position (if applicable) New ? Check if None https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4B2F77-AA32-45CC-87E3-EDA202C885B6&filingTypeID=51[4/1/2018 10:20:14 AM] LD-2 Disclosure Form LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed. 15. General issue area code TRD 16. Specific lobbying issues Pipeline safety issues and U.S. source requirements on pipe. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None U.S. SENATE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name Last Name Suffix Covered Official Position (if applicable) David Franasiak Frank Vlossak LA, Rep Merrill Cook ? 19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above New Check if None Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed. 20. Client new address Address City State Zip Code Country State Zip Code Country 21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20) City 22. New General description of client's business or activities LOBBYIST UPDATE 23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client First Name Last Name Suffix 1 2 First Name Last Name Suffix 3 4 ISSUE UPDATE 24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS 25. Add the following affiliated organization(s) https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4B2F77-AA32-45CC-87E3-EDA202C885B6&filingTypeID=51[4/1/2018 10:20:14 AM] LD-2 Disclosure Form Internet Address: Address Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) Street Address Name City State/Province Zip Country City State Country 26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client 1 2 3 FOREIGN ENTITIES 27. Add the following foreign entities: Address Name Principal place of business (city and state or country) Street Address City State/Province Country Amount of contribution for lobbying activities Ownership percentage in client City State Country % 28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization 1 3 5 2 4 6 https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=4D4B2F77-AA32-45CC-87E3-EDA202C885B6&filingTypeID=51[4/1/2018 10:20:14 AM] 6? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 79% WASHINGTON. DC. 20460 44 MAR 2 7 2017 OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE Judy Garber Acting Assistant Secretary Bureau Of International Oceans, Environmental and Scienti?c Affairs US. Department of State Washington, DC 20520 Dear Ms. Garber, In accordance with our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has reviewed the Department of State?s (Department) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for a Presidential. permit application by Enbridge Energy, LP (Enbridge) to expand the capacity at the border of the Line 67' oil pipeline project. As a cooperating agency in the Department?s NEPA process, EPA appreciates the collaborative spirit of the Department?s Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues to thoroughly cOnsider the potential impacts Of the proposal. The upfront collaboration between our of?ces allowed us to work jointly with your staff to identify and improve several aspects of the analysis, which should ultimately increase the Department?s ability to bring the process to a successful conclusion. Line 67 transports crude oil from Alberta, Canada to terminals in Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline was originally permitted in 2009 and constructed in 2010 with a capacity Of 500,000 barrels per day (bpd). In its current application, Enbridge seeks to increase Line 67?s capacity by 390,000 bpd. As stated in the DSEIS, Line 67?s full capacity is expected to transport Oil sands crude. The DSEIS carefully considers spill risks and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). EPA appreciates the updated spill risk modelling, description of historical spills, and clarifying information on cleanup capacity. The consideration of GHG emissions under different Operational scenarios and market assumptions addresses uncertainty and the relative GHG intensity of Oil sands crudcs. EPA believes these discussions are clear and infonnative, and take a hard look at potential impacts. The EPA has rated the DSEIS A summary of rating system is attached. EPA has also enclosed technical comments for the Department?s consideration to further improve the ?nal SEIS analysis. We look forward to working with the Department on this matter. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 202-564-5400, or Justin Wright of my staff at 202?564-0678. Sincerely, Robert Tomiak Director Of?ce of Federal Activities [Enclosure] EPA Technical Comments Line 67 DSEIS Chapter 5, Speci?c Characteristics of Diluted Bitumen: Given the unique properties and specific risks associated with spills of diluted bitumen, we recommend the FSEIS improve discussion of these issues and any practicable measures available that would reduce risks to surface and ground water resources. We recommend the National Academy of Sciences report, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response as a useful reference. The report describes the high density, viscosity, and adhesion properties of bitumen, and the unique challenges for spill response -- including the detection, containment, and recovery of oil submerged in the water column.1 Chapter 5, Surface Water Monitoring: With regard to water body crossings, EPA recommends additional consideration be given to the potential for extreme precipitation events and pipeline integrity. Severe ?ooding events have the potential to destabilize stream banks and pipeline infrastructure. An example occurred along the Yellowstone River in Montana in 2011 during a flooding event HL MT 10?2012.pdf. Accordingly, we recommend that monitoring USGS stream hydrographs be considered for priority water bodies to the extent practicable,2 based on the nature of the conditions at speci?c crossings. Chapter 5, Spill Sensors: Given reasonably foreseeable advancements in sensors for petroleum hydrocarbons, we recommend that consideration be given to ensuring the best available practicable technologies are utilized overtime. Priority consideration should be given to areas near water resources that serve as drinking water supplies. Chapter 5, Incorporation of Available GIS Data for Private Wells: EPA recommends the FSEIS include readily available GIS information on water resources in relationship to the pipeline, and how this may be used in response efforts. As an example, the Minnesota Department of Health provides locations of private wells, some of which are in proximity to the pipeline Additionally, provides data on depth to ground water, with private wells 20-30 ft in depth, with some as shallow as 10 ft Table 6-1, Cumulative Projects Overview {pages 6-5 to 6-16}: Keystone XL: Table 6-1, footnote (page 6-15} states "The cumulative impacts analysis within this does not currently consider the Keystone XL pipeline as a foreseeable project. We recommend the DSEIS provide an update on the status of Keystone XL and amend Table 6-1 and the cumulative impacts analysis accordingly. National Academy of Sciences, Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, E?ects, and Response. 2015. 2 Table 7-3, Existing Measures Implemented by Enbriclge for Each Environmental Resource Area during Pipeline Operations {pages 7-5 to The applicant has identified an air quality mitigation measure at the Superior terminal that entails using floating roofs to control VOC emissions [Table 7-3 (page ?(L'ontroil air emissions from most storage tanks at the Superior Terminai using ?oating roofs equipped with seais to prevent the direct contact of the stored iiquid with ambient air and prevent VOCs from escaping." We recommend the FSEIS consider, as appropriate, the practicability of floating roofs on tanks currently without them. imp" swam." Rt )wtcanlma [\'uumlul punt) Au EPA Environmental Impact Statement Rating System Criteria EPA has developed a set of criteria for rating a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). EPA rates the draft EIS on an alphanumeric system and includes the designated rating in EPA's comment letter. In general, the ratrng is based on the lead agency's preferred alternative. The rating system provides a basis upon which EPA makes recommendations to the lead agency for rmprovrng the draft EIS. The alphabetical categories listed below signify EPA's evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal: . LO (Lack of Oblections) . EC (Envrronmenlal Concerns) . . EU Envrronmenlally Unsatisfactory The numerical categories listed below signify an evaluation of the adequacy of the draft EIS: . Adeguate - 2 (Insufficrent Information) . 3(Inadequatel The rating of the draft EIS consists of one of the category combinations shown below: lul-- Impact Statement Rating System National micEC-1, EC-2 EO-1, EO-2, EO-3 . EU-1, EU-2, EU-3, or 3 Rating the Environmental Impact of the Action L0 (Lack of Objections) The review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the preferred alternative. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposed action. Top of Page EC (Environmental Concerns) The review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. Top of Page E0 (Environmental Objections) The review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to adequately protect the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). The basis for environmental Objections can include situations: . Where an action might violate or be inconsistent with achievement or maintenance of a national environmental standard; . Where the federal agency violates its own substantive environmental requirements that relate to EPA's areas ofjurisdiction or expenise; - Where there is a violation of an EPA policy declaration; in" Impact Statement Rating System National mic; Act Us EPA 0 Where there are no applicable standards or where applicable standards will not be violated but there is potential for significant environmental degradation that could be corrected by project modification or other feasible alternatives; or . Where proceeding with the proposed action would set a precedent for future actions that collectively could result in significant environmental impacts. Top of Page EU (Environmentally Unsatisfactory) The review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that EPA believes the proposed action must not proceed as proposed. The basis for an environmentally unsatisfactory determination consists of identification of environmentally objectionable impacts as defined above and one or more of the following conditions: . The potential violation of, or inconsistency with, a national environmental standard is substantive and/or will occur on a long-term basis; . There are no applicable standards but the severity, duration, or geographical scope of the impacts associated with the proposed action warrant special attention; or . The potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action are of national importance because of the threat to national environmental resources or to environmental policies. Top of Page Rating the Adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Category 1 - Adequate The draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No funher analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Impact Statement Rating System National mic; Au Us EPA Top of Page Category 2 - Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the proposal. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Top of Page Category 3 - Inadequate The draft EIS does not adequately assess the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposal, or the reviewer has identified new, reasonably available, alternatives, that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. This rating indicates EPA's belief that the draft EIS does not meet the purposes of NEPA and/or the Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. Top of Page littps wa cm 11 5818 Providing safe and reliable access to North American crude oil. Alberta Clipper (Line 67) Expansion North America needs reliable and secure transportation of petroleum supplies. Refineries in the U.S. Midwest and surrounding regions rely on crude oil transported by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership's Line 67, a 36-inch diameter crude oil pipeline that spans from North Dakota through Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin. Line 67 has been operating since 2010. Enbridge increased the capacity of Line 67, outside of a three-mile U.S./Canada border segment, to 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) by adding and modifying pump stations in 2014 and 2015. Permitting In November 2012, Enbridge filed an application for a Presidential Permit with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to authorize Enbridge to transport 800,000 bpd on the existing three-mile segment of the Line 67 pipeline that crosses the international border. On February 10, 2017, DOS issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) as part of its review of Enbridge's application and held a public comment period from February 10 - March 27, 2017. The Department of State considered comments received during the comment period in preparation of the Final SEIS, which was published on August 11, 2017. The State Department will consider information provided in the Final SEIS, among other factors, as part of the Record of Decision and National Interest Determination for approval or denial of a Presidential Permit for Enbridge's Line 67 Expansion. More information on pipelines and how they operate and are regulated is available at www.pipeline101.org/. Pump Stations Pump stations play a vital role in moving crude oil through the Enbridge pipeline system. Pump stations contain one or more electrically driven pumping units, strategically located along the pipeline route to maintain the flow and keep it within safe operating limits. > Learn more about the Alberta Clipper (Line 67) Expansion -- MinnesotaProjects.enbridge.com -- Toll-free phone number: (855) 714-8374 -- Email: enbridgeinmn@enbridge.com JL/VEN/08/17 Project Benefits o Maintaining access to secure and reliable supplies of North American crude oil, moving the U.S. closer to energy independence. o Reducing the nation's reliance on imports from nations that are less stable or unfriendly to U.S. interests. o Ensuring refineries in the U.S. Midwest and surrounding areas continue to get the oil needed to satisfy public demand for petroleum products. o Continuing to generate millions of dollars of tax revenue for communities along the pipeline route that provide funding for schools, roads and other community needs. LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPENDIX D SCOPING SUMMARY D.1 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department of State (Department) issued a Notice of Intent on March 15, 2013 in the Federal Register (FR) stating that it would be preparing the Line 67 Expansion Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in support of its review of the Presidential Permit application (78 FR 16565). The initial public scoping period ran from March 14, 2013 to April 29, 2013, and it was later extended to May 13, 2013 to allow all interested parties an opportunity to submit comments (78 FR 26101). The Department issued an amended Notice of Intent on August 18, 2014 in response to new information provided by Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) and announced additional public scoping. The new information included Enbridge's intent to proceed, prior to the Department's issuance of the new Presidential Permit, with certain elements of the proposed Line 67 Expansion that are outside of the 3-mile border segment. A 30-day public scoping period followed publication of the Notice of Intent, which ended on September 18, 2014 (79 FR 48817). The Department received more than 241,000 submissions from commenters during the cumulative scoping periods; nearly 16,000 in response to the initial Notice of Intent in March 2013 and more than 225,000 in response to the amended Notice of Intent in August 2014. The Department received comments from, among others, one congressional representative, one federal agency, two state agencies and three Indian tribes. The Department also received 24 submissions containing comments from a total of 45 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or advocacy groups, and approximately 500 unique comments from members of the general public. Members of the public also participated in nine email and website campaigns by advocacy groups. Approximately 12,000 citizens submitted nearly identical emails of support for the project in one campaign, and approximately 228,600 submitted emails and digital comments in opposition through eight campaigns. Stakeholders expressed concerns about the project and the proposed new Presidential Permit. The public scoping comments addressed a broad range of concerns, including the scope of this SEIS, the purpose and need for the project, the consideration of alternatives, potential connected actions, pipeline safety and the potential for spills, and the adequacy of regulatory oversight for pipelines and pipeline safety. Commenters also raised concerns about potential impacts on environmental and human resources, specifically including air quality, water resources, biological resources, noise, public health and safety, Indian tribal resources, transportation, socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice. Commenters additionally expressed concerns about the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the project that may adversely affect U.S. energy use and dependence on non-renewable sources, and the contribution to greenhouse gases and global climate change. The Department has reviewed and considered all comments during preparation of this Draft SEIS. Table D-1 summarizes the key environmental concerns identified by the public in comments submitted to the Department during the scoping process for the proposed Line 67 Expansion. The table paraphrases and summarizes the comments as appropriate to represent fairly the concerns identified and opinions expressed by the commenters. The comments do not represent the views of the Department. D-1 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject Scope of the SEIS Connected Actionsb ? The SEIS should address the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project and alternatives on all affected resources. ? The scope should extend to all the impacts of increased oil sands extraction, transportation and consumption resulting from the Line 67 Expansion, which the Alberta Clipper Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) did not analyze adequately. ? The scope should include any increase in oil transported into the United States associated with Line 67. ? The SEIS should consider and disclose all chemicals that Enbridge will use in transporting the oil through the pipeline. ? The purpose of the permitting process is to give the Department the authority to determine what types and how much crude oil is imported into the United States based on what would serve the national interest. Enbridge's current proposals for Line 67 and Line 3 are connected, cumulative and similar actions, which must be considered together. Therefore, the SEIS should evaluate the impacts of the interconnections and the planned upgrades to Line 3 before the Department enables any expansion of transboundary pipeline capacity. ? The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prohibits Enbridge from moving forward with the Line 67 Expansion, including any temporary increase in capacity by way of the Line 3 pipeline border-crossing segment, until the Department issues a Final SEIS and Record of Decision and determines whether the expansion would serve the national interest. Non-federal entities may not be permitted to evade NEPA by completing a project without an EIS and then presenting the responsible agency with an accomplished fact. ? Concurrent with its plans to increase flow through Line 67, Enbridge is expanding the holding capacity at its Superior Terminal. Enbridge admits that the new tanks will hold oil received from the capacity-enhanced Line 67, but claims that they will also be used for oil received via other pipelines within Enbridge's Lakehead System. However, it appears that--at least until 2016 when the proposed Sandpiper pipeline may be completed to the Superior Terminal--the tanks are being built exclusively to accommodate the increased flow through Line 67. In any case, even if the tanks are only being built in part to accommodate this increased flow, this impact must still be considered under NEPA. ? Among the categories of connected actions are cases in which actions are parts of a larger action and dependent upon the larger action for their justification. The Line 67 upgrades are interdependent on upgrades to other portions of the Enbridge system and depend on the system-wide upgrade for their justification. In particular, the Line 67 upgrade is dependent on the Line 61 upgrade. Enbridge anticipates that the majority of increased oil sands crude oil will be transported from its Superior Terminal via Line 61 to its Flanagan Terminal near Pontiac, Illinois (where it can then be delivered to various refineries through Lines 62, 6B, 17, 10, 55 and new Line 79 under construction). But before it can be delivered to market through these pipelines, it must first pass through Line 61, which is also supposed to undergo upgrades to increase its flow. This is why the Line 61 and Line 67 projects are interdependent and connected actions. Without expanding the capacity of Line 61, there is little independent utility of the Line 67 permit modification. ? The Line 67 Expansion will increase the volume of crude oil supply to the United States and thus require increased refinery capacity, although Enbridge's application claims that no refinery upgrades and/or expansions will be undertaken in connection with the project. The SEIS should investigate this claim, as well as identify and quantify the increases in refinery capacity necessary to process the additional oil sands crude oil conveyed by the pipeline as a result of this project. The environmental impacts of upgrading and increasing refinery capacity must be considered in the SEIS. D-2 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject Purpose and Need Alternatives Cumulative Impactsc - General ? The SEIS should investigate Enbridge's assertions of purpose of and need for the expansion project and consider evidence that contradicts these claims. Because Enbridge refers to the 2009 Record of Decision ROD and National Interest Determination, the SEIS should also reexamine the stated purpose and need for the Line 67 Expansion and the subsequent determination that the Line 67 Expansion would serve the national interest. ? The Department should verify the following claims: (1) there is growing U.S. energy demand for Canadian heavy crude oil; (2) there will be an increase in U.S. demand for Canadian heavy crude oil in the foreseeable future; (3) existing and foreseeable transportation capacity of Canadian heavy crude oil does not and will not meet growing U.S. demands; and (4) U.S. refineries require the additional supply of Canadian heavy crude oil from the Line 67 pipeline to meet growing U.S. demands. ? The need to distribute and transport a growing supply of Canadian oil sands crude oil is a supply-side issue. Increasing capacity to meet this need may serve Canada's national interest, but it is irrelevant to a determination of U.S. national interest. ? The SEIS should reevaluate the No Action Alternative with due consideration of alternatives to the Line 67 Expansion. ? Alternatives should include, but not be limited to, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, clean technologies and demand-response management. ? The analysis of the No Action Alternative should appropriately describe the benefits to the environment of not increasing the capacity of the Line 67 pipeline. ? The SEIS should include a discussion on whether increasing capacity of Line 67 would require modifications to Enbridge's existing diluents return pipeline, identify the potential modifications, and consider possible alternatives, assess potential impacts and identify mitigation measures. ? The entirety of the proposed Line 67 Expansion, including, but not limited to, increases in mining and/or drilling, additions to pump stations, new or upgraded refineries, increased oil transport and effects on end use, should be examined in the cumulative analysis, particularly on climate change impacts. ? The cumulative impacts analysis should include current and proposed transmission line corridors, highway construction, water delivery systems, landfills, railroads, power plants, feedlots, and mine and mineral extraction sites that have the potential to interact with the proposed project. ? The SEIS should consider the potential for significant cumulative impacts related to past, present and future projects in the Duluth/Superior area involving increased transmission, storage, processing or refining activities (including the Calumet Superior Refining Facility), or transportation of oil, fuels or other petroleum products. ? A valid cumulative impacts analysis should address upstream extraction as well as downstream refining and combustion. The SEIS should conduct a complete life-cycle assessment of environmental impacts from the Line 67 Expansion. ? The Line 67 Expansion is about a change in what materials will move through a substantial portion of the U.S. pipeline infrastructure for decades to come, making it far more likely that oil sands crude oil will be the primary product carried by a large number of pipelines. The SEIS must fully disclose how the proposed major expansion of Line 67 is connected to, and would result in, cumulative impacts in relation to other pipelines and proposed expansions. D-3 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject Pipeline Safety and Spills ? The SEIS should evaluate the implications of increased product throughput on pipeline safety and potential spills. The analysis in the Alberta Clipper EIS should be updated to include an analysis of the unique nature of diluted bitumen (dilbit), historical incidences of spills and how spills of dilbit may require specialized response protocols or equipment compared to conventional oil spills. ? The SEIS should identify the locations of shut-off valves for Line 67 and describe how these are located strategically to prevent or minimize the release of pipeline contents into sensitive areas in the event of a leak or rupture. The SEIS should also identify the worstcase discharge for the response zones of Line 67 in accordance with Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulations. ? The SEIS should consider and disclose the unique characteristics and threats posed by the transportation of oil sands crude oil. Dilbit is known to be more corrosive and much more difficult to remove from waterways and wetlands than conventional crude oil. During a spill, dilbit would likely sink beneath the surface of water, making it significantly harder to clean up than floating oil. ? As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended for the Keystone XL project, the SEIS should consider requiring Enbridge to establish a network of monitoring wells along the length of the pipeline, especially in sensitive and ecologically important areas, and where water supply wells are located and at stream crossings, in order to provide a practical and effective means for early detection of leaks that are below any proposed detection limit of the pipeline flow rate. ? As recommended by USEPA for the Keystone XL project, the SEIS should include consideration of the following mitigation measures as permit conditions: (1) requiring that the emergency response plan address submerged oil, as well as floating oil, including in a cold weather response; (2) requiring pre-positioned response assets, including equipment that can address submerged oil; (3) requiring spill response drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment to address floating and submerged oil; and (4) requiring that emergency response and oil spill response plans be reviewed by USEPA. ? The SEIS should address the potential for Stuxnet-like malware or other cyber attack mechanisms to infect the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that controls the compressors, regulators, valves and sensors of the entire Enbridge system. ? The SEIS must consider Enbridge's full pipeline operating history in the United States, as well as in Canada. The scope of examination of Enbridge's pipeline incident history should include all "accidents" as defined in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 195.50 that have occurred at Enbridge-owned and/or operated crude oil pipelines in the United States and Canada since the company's founding as Lakehead Pipeline Company, Inc. in 1950. ? The SEIS should consider the overall safety of pipelines carrying oil sands crude oil by looking at all incidents that have occurred on oil sands crude oil pipelines in the United States and Canada. This includes, but is not limited to, release events on pipelines owned and/or operated by TransCanada, ExxonMobil and Kinder Morgan. The safety record of oil sands crude oil pipelines in general should be examined alongside Enbridge's safety record as part of the SEIS spill risk analysis. ? The SEIS should provide information about insurance and monetary reserves that will be established by Enbridge for response and restoration measures in the event of spills and releases. D-4 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject Regulatory Oversight Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ? The SEIS should address the weaknesses of PHMSA regulations including, but not limited to, PHMSA's lack of regulatory guidance for pipeline facility response planning, PHMSA's ineffective oversight of pipeline Integrity Management Programs and PHMSA's limited oversight of pipeline emergency preparedness. ? The composition of oil sands crude oil and the increased flow make it reasonably foreseeable that spills will occur and cause serious environmental effects. Oil sands crude oil is much heavier than conventional crude oil and must be pumped at significantly higher pressures and temperatures. It is among the most viscous, abrasive, sulfurous and acidic forms of oil produced. Yet the safety and spill response standards that apply to oil sands crude oil transport are the same as those that apply to conventional oil. Regulations need to be updated by PHMSA before these projects receive approval from the Department. ? In its comments on the Keystone XL Pipeline EIS, USEPA noted that Enbridge's dilbit spill in Marshall, Michigan demonstrated that oil sands crude oil behaves differently when released in water; and that these types of spills may require different response actions or equipment than conventional crude oil spills. This comment on the Keystone XL Pipeline EIS implies that existing regulations may not be adequate to protect the environment in the event of such spills. ? Congress exempted oil sands crude oil from the definition of oil under the Oil Pollution Act. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Service has determined that companies transporting oil sands crude oil are exempt from the tax payable into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. These circumstances reduce the payments into the trust fund and weaken its capacity to support response and restoration activities in the event of spills or releases of oil sands crude oil thereby increasing public risk and liability. ? The SEIS should analyze greenhouse gas emissions associated with the expansion, including a discussion of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for the transported product. The analysis should also consider the relationship of the proposed expansion to the levels and rates of development of oil sands crude. The SEIS should discuss a range of possible mitigation measures for the potential increases in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the proposed expansion. ? In June 2013, the President made clear that the Keystone XL Pipeline would not be in the national interest if it were found to "significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." All oil sands projects should be held to this same "climate test." If the Line 67 Expansion cannot pass this test, the proposed Permit should not be approved. ? The Council on Environmental Quality is expected to issue greenhouse gas and climate change guidance for NEPA soon. Over its entire lifecycle, the synthetic crude oil produced from oil sands emits at least 17 percent more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil. The Department should postpone further review of the proposed Line 67 Expansion until the final guidelines can be reviewed and incorporated. Otherwise, the Department must incorporate the draft guidance into its analysis to ensure a more complete assessment of the climate change impacts of the proposed Project and a reasonable range of alternatives. ? If approved, the Line 67 Expansion would lead directly to violations of Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 42 United States Code (USC) ?17142, which forbids federal agencies from contracting to procure fuel from unconventional petroleum sources unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract will be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. D-5 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (Continued) Air Quality Water Resources ? NEPA requires that the cumulative impacts of projects be evaluated together, rather than in a vacuum. Yet so far, the Department has evaluated each pipeline in isolation without ever analyzing the cumulative growth-inducing impact that will result from the entire network of oil sands pipelines. The SEIS should evaluate the cumulative climate change impacts of the Line 67 Expansion combined with the impacts of the pending Keystone XL Project and other past, present and foreseeable oil sands pipelines using the same "climate test" as for the Keystone XL Pipeline. ? The SEIS should address the issue of how the expansion of oil sands crude oil production will affect whether the world can remain below a 2-degree limit for global temperature rise. The analysis should also consider the indirect effects on global climate change attributable to U.S. decision making with respect to leadership in climate action. ? The analysis of potential air quality impacts from construction and operation should include updating the current status of air quality in the project area, including the Rainbow Lake Wilderness Class I area. The SEIS should also outline whether additional Clean Air Act permits would be required, such as for additional pumping capacity and additional storage tanks at the Superior and/or Clearbrook terminals. ? The SEIS should identify the likely destinations for the crude oil transported by Line 67, and evaluate the potential air quality impacts associated with refining the volume of crude oil associated with the proposed capacity expansion. ? Refining crude oil extracted from oil sands requires more energy input than conventional crude oil. The process significantly increases emissions of pollutants, including heavy metals (e.g., mercury), conventional air pollutants and carbon dioxide. The environmental damage caused by these pollutants includes acid rain; concentration of toxic chemicals up the food chain; creation of ground-level ozone and smog; visible impairments that migrate to sensitive areas such as National Parks and depletion of soil nutrients. The SEIS should consider these direct or indirect impacts of the proposed Project. ? Although the Alberta Clipper EIS stated that emissions associated with the end use of oil sands crude oil by consumers are not expected to be influenced by the source of oil and thus not affected by increased use of heavier crude oil, this assumption fails to recognize that increased access to oil sands crude oil will keep petroleum prices lower than without it. Hence, the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of burning more liquid fossil fuels must be included in the SEIS. ? The applicant should develop a detailed plan for accessing areas where the pipeline crosses surface waters. Obtaining access to remote areas, especially large expanses of bog or open water wetland in the event of a release from the pipeline is a significant concern. When vehicles cannot access a potential release location, the risk of large-scale environmental damage and costly clean-up efforts increase. There are 20 such remote water-crossing locations that should be addressed. ? The Floodwood Pump Station is located near a sensitive area for surface water, which is a ditch that flows to the Floodwood River and then to the Saint Louis River. Therefore, measures to reduce the risk of releases should be included in the SEIS generally and specifically for this location; e.g., a description of the shut-off valves. ? The analysis of impacts to water resources should address how discharges of dredged or fill material for the proposed expansion would comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States. The SEIS should include a copy of the proposed wetland mitigation plan. ? The SEIS should identify the sources and amounts of water to be used for hydrostatic testing, if needed, and discuss the best management practices that will be used to protect resources during testing. ? The SEIS should address the danger of locating proposed oil storage facilities for the Superior Terminal on the shoreline of Lake Superior. Such facilities would be vulnerable to an intentional destructive act that could contaminate the largest body of fresh water in the world and endanger the water supplies of numerous municipalities on the lakeshore. D-6 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject Water Resources (Continued) Biological Resources Cultural Resources ? The SEIS should address the total water requirements for processing and conveying dilbit from the source in Alberta to the refineries, as well as the impacts of discharges on receiving waters. ? The effects of shipping oil sands crude oil on the Great Lakes should be addressed in the SEIS as indirect impacts of the proposed Line 67 Expansion. As defined by NEPA, these effects would be caused by the Proposed Action at a later time and farther removed by distance, but they are reasonably foreseeable effects of the action. ? The proposed permit modification would allow hundreds of thousands more barrels per day of oil sands crude oil to flow to the shores of Lake Superior. Currently, no oil sands crude oil is shipped by vessel over the Great Lakes. If oil sands crude oil is not moved by ship over the lakes before the permit modification, this project will certainly be the catalyst. If oil sands crude oil ends up being moved by ship before the permit modification, it will nonetheless cause a large increase in such shipping. The SEIS must consider such an increase in shipping and potential impacts of accidental spills. ? The SEIS must take a hard look at the impacts of spills to wildlife. A look at the types of wildlife primarily suffering adverse impacts from the 2010 Marshall, Michigan spill and the recent Mayflower spill reveals that these spills of oil sands crude oil primarily hurt reptiles, amphibians and birds such as ducks and geese that rely on aquatic habitat. Releases to surface waters from pipeline leaks or ruptures would affect habitat, potentially including endangered species habitat, along the length of Line 67. ? The interconnection between Line 67 and Line 3 will result in the expansion of oil sands crude oil flow into the United States, which may have direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on endangered species. Therefore, the interconnection of Line 67 and Line 3 will negatively color the consultation that the Department must perform with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by changing the baseline amount of oil sands crude oil that the Department may choose to discuss in its consultation. ? Increased oil sands extraction has a direct impact on migratory species. The extraction of oil sands through open pit mining is destroying acres of forest habitat, while the construction of wells, roads and pipes is permeating the forest with industrial intrusion. Oil sands extraction also reduces viable bird habitat by reducing water available to natural ecosystems, as very little of the water used in operations is returned to the natural cycle. Fragmentation of forests from oil sands drilling and transportation infrastructure leaves fewer areas of closed forest canopy, which affects the social structure and mating success of breeding birds. Noise pollution from compressor stations also affects bird breeding success. Furthermore, the extraction of bitumen from oil sands produces large volumes of wastewater stored in wastewater reservoirs or "tailings ponds" and reclaimed in aquatic systems causing pollution that threatens the habitat and health of migratory birds and other wildlife. ? Oil sands development also destroys critical habitat for threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) that live in local herds and do not migrate. Roughly one third of Alberta's woodland caribou lives in the oil sands region. All caribou herds in the oil sands area have declined more than 50 percent in the last three generations. ? The Department has failed to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by allowing Enbridge to expand oil sands crude oil flow via the interconnections between Line 67 and Line 3. There has been no effort to properly identify any potentially affected historic properties or evaluate the potential impacts that the expansion of oil sands crude oil flow and associated construction may have on eligible properties. D-7 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject ? The Department must consider the increase of rail transport and the associated environmental effects as an indirect impact of its permit approval. Of the additional oil that Line 67 will convey into Superior, Wisconsin only so much of it can be transported out again by pipeline; the rest will largely be sent to refineries by rail. The SEIS must consider the reasonably foreseeable effects of these increases in transport, including the impacts of rail accidents on environmental resources and population centers. ? The clogging of rail lines by trains carrying oil tank cars is adversely affecting farmers who need to move grain and other produce to markets. With appropriate oversight, pipelines can provide the most efficient and fastest means of moving oil to market. ? The Department should consider whether oil companies are using transportation bottlenecks as leverage for the approval of more pipelines. Shipments of grain, coal and propane are periodically delayed in the northern Midwest because of rail bottlenecks. Noise ? The SEIS should update the analysis of noise levels, including increases and decreases in noise levels at various pipeline facilities and at the nearest sensitive noise receptors (residences, schools and hospitals). Public Health and Safety ? The SEIS should address potential impacts on public health and safety, particularly with respect to the effects of spills and releases of oil sands crude oil. Socioeconomics ? Because the Line 67 Expansion would increase crude oil supply and require increased refinery capacity, it will also require an expanded distribution system. The SEIS should address the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of transporting and distributing oil sands crude oil after it reaches Enbridge's Superior Terminal. This includes, but is not limited to, impacts on the local environment, economy and communities along various crude oil transportation routes encompassing the Great Lakes region and extending to the Gulf Coast and the coast of Maine. ? The SEIS should include a monetized estimate of the cost to society from the pollution and climate change impacts that would be attributable to the pipeline. ? The analysis should consider the potential increase in gasoline prices attributable to the proposed project based on the higher costs of refining heavy crude oil conveyed by the pipeline. ? The SEIS should address the potential for Canada to sell oil sands crude oil to China if the Presidential Permit is not approved. The promotion of energy policies that strengthen North American energy independence and economic power will be crucial to national success. ? The SEIS should update the environmental justice analysis in the Alberta Clipper EIS to include a comprehensive analysis and characterization of communities along the pipeline route, including minority, low-income and tribal populations at a census block level. The analysis should characterize potentially disproportionate impacts on these populations from increased pipeline throughput and potential risks. ? The analysis should characterize the capabilities of minority and low-income communities, which are often underserved by medical personnel and emergency services, to respond to a pipeline emergency and resulting spill. The SEIS should consider mitigation measures to improve the capacity of such communities to react and respond to pipeline accidents and spills. Transportation Environmental Justice D-8 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject ? The SEIS should clearly identify whether increasing the pipeline flow would require actions within the boundaries of the Leech Lake and Fond du Lac Indian Reservations. The Department should consult with representatives of both Indian tribes for the SEIS. ? The Proposed Action will have impacts within the Leech Lake Indian Reservation, including an active Cass Lake pump station leak site. ? Access to a spill site on the Fond du Lac Reservation could be extremely difficult. Extensive wetlands and a lack of roads that can handle heavy equipment create barriers to access that could take weeks to overcome. The Indian tribe participated in a tabletop exercise with Enbridge, which showed that the minimum response to a leak would be 3 hours, in which case the release could reach the Saint Louis River. ? Line 67 does not have an adequate number of valve stations in the Fond du Lac Reservation to isolate and minimize potential releases from a pipeline leak or rupture. There is only one valve station currently located on the reservation. ? A spill from Line 67 could affect wild rice waters on the Fond du Lac Reservation, diminishing a mainstay of the tribe's traditional way of life. The Indian tribe's subsistence lifestyle is based upon the harvest of clean fish, game, wild rice, maple sugar, medicinal plants and forest products. They have been able to sustain this way of life because their local ecosystem is still largely intact. Also, most of the wetlands on the reservation are peat bogs, which would be affected for many years in the event of a spill or leak. ? The potential endangerment of Lake Superior that would be enabled by the Line 67 Expansion Project, because of potential accidents and spills, represents a threat to a sacred deity of the Ojibwe Peoples. The traditional religious beliefs of the Ojibwe must be respected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Decommissioning and Abandonment ? The Alberta Clipper EIS projected that the Line 67 pipeline will be abandoned in approximately 50 years, but it failed to discuss the specific process for, or impacts of, abandonment. The Department should require Enbridge to submit an abandonment plan and the SEIS should include any impacts from end-of-use operations, decommissioning and abandonment. The Department should also require financial assurance from Enbridge for restoration and compensation related to operational spills and abandonment. Requiring financial assurance is a necessary mitigation measure to ensure that any environmental impacts from spills, end-of-use operations, decommissioning and abandonment can be adequately addressed. Energy Use and Dependence ? The cumulative impacts analysis should consider and disclose the significant increase in energy that would be required to extract and transport the proposed massive amounts of heavy oil sands crude oil from the source in Alberta to the Superior Terminal. ? In addition to examining the incremental impacts of the proposed Line 67 Expansion, the SEIS should widen the scope of its analysis to consider the cumulative environmental impacts of pipelines that convey oil sands crude oil from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, including, but not limited to, Kinder Morgan's Express and Trans Mountain Pipelines and TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Project. The Keystone XL and Line 67 pipelines, as proposed, would carry a total of 1.7 million barrels per day of oil sands crude oil from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) in Canada to various refineries in the United States. The upstream and downstream impacts of these two large-scale projects should be considered together in the Line 67 SEIS. Their cumulative impacts on the environment and joint roles in perpetuating U.S. reliance on carbon-intensive fossil fuels must be addressed. Tribal Lands and Resources D-9 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX D. SCOPING SUMMARY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table D-1. Summary of Comments Received During the SEIS Scoping Process Representative Issues and Concerns Expressed in Public Commentsa Subject General Support General Opposition ? Oil and natural gas account for 60 percent of our national energy consumption. The United States has a vital interest in improving our pipeline systems and increasing North American energy production. This is much-needed oil that will help with lower prices at the gas pump. ? When properly maintained, pipelines are a low-carbon emissions method of transporting oil and natural gas in the United States and lower the cost of the fuel they carry compared to other forms of transportation. Pipelines are safer environmentally than shipping or trucking the oil. ? Increasing North American energy production means greater energy security and more jobs for skilled workers in the United States. ? The Line 67 Expansion will improve the efficiency and overall safety of the pipeline, which means protecting local communities and greater national energy security. ? The Department should deny Enbridge's request to amend their 2009 Presidential Permit for Line 67, as the proposed doubling of the existing pipeline's capacity to transport up to 880,000 barrels per day of dirty oil sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada would not serve the national interest. ? This expansion represents not only potentially the largest oil sands infrastructure project in the country, but it is part of other major oil sands projects that present climate, safety and other impacts that need to be carefully examined. These impacts are contrary to energy policy objectives that seek to reduce carbon pollution, tackle climate change and protect communities from the direct threats of disasters like spills that harm the environment and public health. ? Enbridge damaged Michigan's Kalamazoo River irreparably, and any additional fines that may be imposed will be skirted by Enbridge if possible, but will never be able to restore the riparian quality that its neglect destroyed. That is the kind of company Enbridge is; it is not going to change unless forced by those in power (and those whose job it is) to protect the United States, its people, its resources and its future. ? Someday, we will move on from carbon-based energy and, when we do, let's make sure the Great Lakes remain pristine. Short-term thinking results in long-term problems. This pipeline is short-term thinking. ? The shipment of dilbit on the Great Lakes should not be allowed until Enbridge can show that it has the capacity to clean up a major spill of their product into our waters. Any permit should be denied until they can accomplish this goal. ? We have the experience of oil spills all over the world; so why do we continue to try to ship oil sands crude oil and other dangerous elements through the earth's gifts when we know huge spills will continue to happen? a This table paraphrases and summarizes the comments as appropriate to represent fairly the issues identified and opinions expressed by the commenters. The comments do not represent the views of the Department. b As defined in the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.25), actions are connected if they: (i) automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements; (ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or (iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. c As defined in the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.7), a cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Department = Department of State; EIS = Environmental Impact Statement; Enbridge = Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; PHMSA = Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; SCADA = Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; SEIS = Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; U.S. = United States; USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USC = United States Code; WCSB = Western Canada Sedimentary Basin D-10 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX E. REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS APPENDIX E REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS E.1 INTRODUCTION This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); conforms with relevant laws and regulations; and conforms with policies of the Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Department of State (Department) (the lead agency). Other federal, tribal, state and local agencies, including cooperating agencies, with jurisdiction over various aspects of the Line 67 Expansion participated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process by providing direct input to the Department (see Chapter 1, Introduction). Table E-1 lists the key federal, tribal and state permits, licenses, approvals and consultation requirements for the operation of the Line 67 Expansion. Table E-2 lists the permits, licenses, approvals and construction requirements for the construction of the Line 67 Expansion, which are applicable to the cumulative analysis completed in Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts. Details about the permits, licenses, approvals and consultation requirements for construction and current operation of Line 67 are addressed in Section 1.6 of the Alberta Clipper Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2009. Table E-1. Permits and Approvals for the Operation of the Line 67 Expansion Agency U.S. Department of State (Department) Permit or Consultation/Authority FEDERAL Agency Action Presidential Permit, Executive Order 13337 The Department is responsible for issuance of Presidential Permits for certain cross-border facilities and the reviews consistent with NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, Section 7 of the ESA and other relevant statutes. U.S. Department of 49 CFR 194 - Response Contains requirements for oil spill response plans to reduce the Transportation, Pipeline and Plans for Onshore environmental impact of oil discharged from onshore oil pipelines. Hazardous Materials Safety Pipelines Administration (PHMSA) 49 CFR 195 - Prescribes safety standards and reporting requirements used Transportation of in the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide. Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline U.S. Department of 36 CFR 251; The existing special use permit authorizes and establishes Agriculture, U.S. Forest 16 USC 1601 - 1604 conditions for use of federally owned land on the Chippewa Service, Chippewa National National Forest. Forest STATE North Dakota (None required) Minnesota Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) Certificate of Need Permit that describes the need of a proposed project within the state. The permit application process reviews the design, construction and operation to verify compliance with relevant policies, rules and regulations of state and federal agencies and local governments. Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Title V Operating Permit Natural Resources (WDNR) Modification The Superior Terminal must operate within its Title V operating permit conditions (Permit Number 816010580-P01). Source: Enbridge 2014 CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; Department = U.S. Department of State; ESA = Endangered Species Act; MPUC = Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; NHPA = National Historic Preservation Act; PHMSA = Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; USC = United States Code; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources E-1 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX E. REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table E-2. Permits and Approvals for the Construction of the Line 67 Expansion Agency Permit or Consultation/Authority Agency Action FEDERAL U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), St. Paul District Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Establishes a program to regulate and consider issuance of Section 404 Clean Water Act permits for the placement of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, and for work in wetlands and establishing compensatory mitigation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 5 New Source Review Permit Ensures that air quality is not significantly degraded from new and modified facilities, and ensures that any large new or modified source will meet Clean Air Act requirements. USEPA Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, Stormwater Discharge Permit on Native American Reservation Lands--Cass Lake Facility Authorizes stormwater discharge to be released during construction activities, as regulated by the NPDES. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Consultation; Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Concurrence that activities will not impact species, specifically migratory birds and federally listed, threatened and endangered species, and ensures compliance with the ESA. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation/State Historical Preservation Officers Section 106 Consultation Requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Indians Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribal Consultation Consultation with Indian Tribes to ensure protection of tribal resources. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwa Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) Tribal Historic Preservation Consultation--Cass Lake Facility Concurrence with the THPO that no historic properties protected under Section 106 of the NHPA would be affected by the Cass Lake pump station upgrades. STATE North Dakota North Dakota State Historical Preservation Officer Section 106 of the NHPA Consultation Requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. E-2 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX E. REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table E-2. Permits and Approvals for the Construction of the Line 67 Expansion Agency Permit or Consultation/Authority Agency Action Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) State-Protected Species Consultation Imposes restrictions and a permit program for endangered or threatened species, including individual permits for the taking of endangered or threatened species. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification Authorizes activities that are compliant with applicable water quality standards that might result in a discharge to state or tribal waters, including wetlands. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act NPDES Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge Permit Protects water quality by considering issuance of NPDES permits for hydrostatic test water discharge. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit--Donaldson, Plummer, Cass Lake and Floodwood Pump Station Facilities Authorizes construction stormwater discharge to be released during construction activities, as regulated by the NPDES. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit--Viking, Clearbrook and Deer River Pump Station Facilities Authorizes construction stormwater discharge to be released during construction activities, as regulated by the NPDES. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) Certificate of Need Permit that describes the need of a proposed project within the state. The permit application process reviews the design, construction and operation to verify compliance with relevant policies, rules and regulations of state and federal agencies and local governments. Minnesota State Historical Society Section 106 Consultation Requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on federal projects prior to implementation. Erosion Control/Grading Permit Designed to prevent environmental damage caused by pollution, soil erosion and sedimentation from land-disturbing construction activities. Post Construction Stormwater Management Regulates post-construction discharges off construction sites of 1 acre or more of disturbed land. WAC NR 406 Air Pollution Control Construction Permit Allows a company to construct, modify, expand or replace an air pollution source, and ensures that proposed projects meet air pollution standards before construction. WAC NR 299 Individual Wetland Permit Necessary for disturbances to wetlands from excavation or placement of any material in wetlands. MS 84.0895; MR 6134; MR 6212.1800-6212.2300 Wisconsin City of Superior Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) E-3 JANUARY 2017 LINE 67 EXPANSION APPENDIX E. REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Table E-2. Permits and Approvals for the Construction of the Line 67 Expansion Agency Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (Continued) Wisconsin State Historical Society Permit or Consultation/Authority Agency Action WAC NR 216 Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit Allows construction site stormwater runoff to be discharged to waters of the state, as regulated by the WPDES. WS 283 Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge Permit Allows the discharge of hydrostatic test water directly to surface waters of the state and/or indirectly to groundwaters of the state. Section 106 Historic Preservation Act Consultation Concurrence with the Wisconsin SHPO regarding the eligibility of potentially historic properties at the Superior Terminal. Source: Enbridge 2014 ESA = Endangered Species Act; MDNR = Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; MPCA = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; MPUC = Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; NHPA = National Historic Preservation Act; NPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination System; SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office; THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Office; USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service; WAC = Wisconsin Administrative Code; WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; WPDES = Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System; WS = Wisconsin Statutes E-4 JANUARY 2017 ?so an, 9e 63. t, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 23 WASHINGTON, DC 20450 421i APR 2 2 2013 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FDH ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE Mr. Jose W. Fernandez Assistant Secretary Economic, Energy and Business Affairs US. Department of State Washington, DC 20520 Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones Assistant Secretary Oceans and International Enviromnental and Scienti?c Affairs U.S. Department of State Washington, DC 20520 Dear Mr. Fernandez and Dr. Jones: In accordance with our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has reviewed the Department of State?s draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for a Presidential Permit application by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (TransCanada) to construct and operate the Keystone XL Project (Project). This DSEIS builds on the Department of State?s August 201 I inal EIS, and includes information regarding a new proposed route in Nebraska. NEPA serves an important role in the decision making process for federal actions that may have environmental effects. Through the NEPA process, federal agencies disclose and analyze the potential impacts of a prOposed action and reasonable alternatives, as well as measures that could mitigate any potential harmful effects. NEPA brings transparency to the federal decision making process, requiring that other federal, state, tribal and local agencies, as well as citizens, are given a meaningful opportunity to provide comments, helping to ensure federal decisions are better informed. EPA believes this DSEIS strengthens the analysis presented to date in the NEPA process. While we appreciate this effort, we also have several recommendations for improving the analysis and considering additional mitigation as you move forward to complete the NEPA process. (UFIL) Recycledmecyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlonne Free Recycled Palomar Greenhouse Gas Emissions We commend the Department of State?s efforts to estimate the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with oil sands development and the proposed Project, to analyze the effect of the Project on Canadian oil sands production and to consider measures to reduce GHG emissions. As recognized by the DSEIS, oil sands crude is signi?cantly more GHG intensive than other crudes, and therefore has potentially large climate impacts. The DSEIS reports that lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands crude could be 81% greater than emissions from the average crude refined in the US. in 2005 en a well-to-tank basis, and 17% greater on a well-to-wheels basis.I This difference may be even greater depending on the assumptions made.2 The incremental emissions from oil sands crude transported by the Project would therefore be 18.7 million metric tons C03-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per year when compared to an equal amount of US. average crudes, based on the Proj ect?s full capacity of 33 0,000 barrels of oil sands crude per day.3 To place this difference in context, we recommend using monetized estimates of the social cost of the GHG emissions from a barrel of oil sands crude compared to average US. crude. If GHG intensity of oil sands crude is not reduced, over a 50 year period the additional COg-e from oil sands crude transported by the pipeline could be as much as 935 million metric tons. It is this difference in GHG intensity - between oil sands and other crudes that is a major focus of the public debate about the climate impacts of oil sands crude. Although the DSEIS describes the GHG intensity of oil sands crude, the DSEIS nevertheless concludes that regardless of whether the Project permit is approved, projected oil sands production will remain substantially unchanged. This conclusion is based on an analysis of crude oil markets and projections of oil sands crude development, including the potential for other means of transport to bring oil sands crude to market. One of the alternative transport possibilities discussed in the DSEIS is the potential construction of other pipelines. As part of this discussion, the DSEIS appropriately recognizes that there is uncertainty about when, if ever, additional pipelines will be built. In light of these uncertainties, the DSEIS examines options for transporting oil sands crude by rail, and concludes that scaling up tranSport by rail is logistically and economically feasible, and that market forces will result in additional rail transport of oil sands crude if the Project is not built. It is this ?nding that supports the overall conclusion that approval of the permit will not by itself substantially affect GHG emissions or contribute to climate change. 1 DSEIS, Table 4.15-22 Emissions for Producing Gasoline from Different Crude Sources ?'om NETL 2009 and Estimates of the Impact of Key Assumptions on the Oil Sands - U.S. Average Differential." In addition to lifecycle emissions estimates from the Department of Energy?s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) study, the DSEIS also provides estimates from other analyses. See discussion in DSEIS section 4.15. 2 DSEIS, p. 4.15-106, ?Adjusting the NETL results to include other product emissions could increase the differential in incremental emissions ?'om WCSB oil sands compared to the 2005 US. average crude oils by roughly 30 percent.? 3 DSEIS p. 4.15-105 The market analysis and the conclusion that oil sands crude will ?nd a way to market with or without the Project is the central ?nding that supports the conclusions regarding the Project?s potential GHG emissions impacts. Because the market analysis is so central to this key conclusion, we think it is important that it be as complete and accurate as possible. We note that the discussion in the DSEIS regarding energy markets, while informative, is not based on an updated energy-economic modeling effort. The DSEIS includes a discussion of rail logistics and the potential growth of rail as a transport option, however we recommend that the Final EIS provide a more careful review of the market analysis and rail transport options. This analysis should include further investigation of rail capacity and costs, recognizing the potential for much higher per barrel rail shipment costs than presented in the DSEIS. This analysis shouId consider how the level and pace of oil sands crude production might be affected by higher transportation costs and the potential for congestion impacts to slow rail transport of crude. In its discussion of practicable options for mitigating GHG emissions, the DSEIS outlines ongoing efforts by the government of Alberta to reduce the GHG emissions associated with development of oil sands crude in Alberta. EPA recommends that the Final EIS complement this discussion with an exploration of specific ways that the US. might work with Canada to promote further efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with the production of oil sands crude, including ajoint focus on carbon capture and storage projects and research, as well as ways to improve energy ef?ciency associated with extraction technologies. With regard to the estimated GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project - primarily emissions associated with electrical generation for the pumping stations - we recommend that the Department of State explore speci?c commitments that TransCanada might make to implement the mitigation measures recommended in the DSEIS. This would complement the signi?cant efforts already made to reduce the risk of spills and ensure community safety. Speci?cally, we recommend a focus on pumping station energy ef?ciency and use of renewable energy, as well as investment in other carbon mitigation options. Pipeline Safety We have learned from the 2010 Enbridge spill of oil sands crude in Michigan that spills of diluted bitumen (dilhit)4 may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for conventional oil spills. These spills can also have different impacts than spills of conventional oil. We recommend that these differences be more fully addressed in the Final EIS, especially as they relate to the fate and transport of the oil and the remediation that will be required. The Enbridge spill involved a 30-inch diameter pipeline, smaller than the 36?inch diameter pipeline for proposed Project, and 20,000 barrels of oil sands crude were released. In that spill, oil sands crude sank to the bottom of the Kalamazoo River, mixing with the river bottom's sediment and organic matter, making the oil dif?cult to ?nd and recover. After almost three years of recovery 4 As noted in the DSEIS, transporting oil sands crude via pipeline requires that it be mixed with a petroleum-based product (called a diluent), such as benzene, naphtha or natural gas condensate, to make a less viscous liquid called dilbit (diluted bitumen). efforts, EPA recently determined that dredging of bottom sediments will be required to protect public health and welfare and the environment. This determination was based in large part on demonstrations that the oil sands crude associated with the Enbridge spill will not appreciably biodegrade.S We recommend that the Final EIS more clearly acknowledge that in the event of a spill to water, it is possible that large portions of dilbit will sink and that submerged oil signi?cantly changes spill response and impacts. We also recommend that the Final EIS include means to address the additional risks of releases that may be greater for spills of dilbit than other crudes. For example, in the Enbridge spill, the local health department issued voluntary evacuation notices based on the level of benzene measured in the air. Given these concerns, it is important to ensure that the future response and remediation plans will protect communities from impacts due to spills. The DSEIS also outlines speci?c measures that the Department of State would require TransCanada to undertake to prevent and detect oil discharges. The measures include commissioning an independent engineering analysis to review TransCanada?s risk assessment of the potential impacts from oil discharges to surface and groundwater resources, as well as TransCanada?s current proposals for placing mainline valves along the pipeline route and installing leak detection equipment. The DSEIS also notes that the Department of State will obtain concurrence from both EPA and PHMSA on both the scope of the engineering analysis and decisions regarding the need for any additional mitigation measures. We recommend that the Department of State provide an opportunity for public review and comment on the scope of the analysis, and an opportunity for public comment on a draft of the analysis when it is completed. We also recommend that the Final EIS consider requiring TransCanada to establish a network of sentinel or monitoring wells along the length of the pipeline, especially in sensitive or ecologically important areas, as well as where water supply wells are located and at stream crossings to provide a practical means for early detection of leaks that are below the proposed detection limit (1.5 of the pipeline flow rate. In addition to prevention measures, we agree with the suggestion that additional mitigation measures regarding preparedness to reduce the impacts of a spill may be appropriate (DSEIS, p. For example, we recommend including the following measures as permit conditions: - Requiring that the emergency response plan, as well as contingency plans address submerged oil, as well as ?oating oil, including in a cold weather reaponse; Requiring pre?positioned response assets, including equipment that can address submerged oil; I Requiring spill drills and exercises that include strategies and equipment deployment to address ?oating and submerged oil; and 5 Order for Removal under Section 31 Me) of the Clean Water Act, March 14, 2013 R?l 720.pdf) - Requiring that emergency response and oil spill response plans be reviewed by EPA. The DSEIS also recognizes that dissolved components of the dilbit that may be transported through the pipeline, such as benzene, aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals, could be slowly released back to the water column for many years after a release and could cause long-term chronic toxicological impacts to organisms in both the benthic and pelagic portions of the aquatic environment. We recommend that the Final EIS more clearly recognize that this characteristic of dilbit is different from the fate and transport of oil contaminants associated with conventional crude oil and refined product spills from pipelines. For that reason we recommend that as a permit condition TransCanada be required to develop a plan for long term sampling/monitoring in the event of an oil discharge to assess and monitor these impacts as part of the spill response plan. In addition, we recommend that the permit require TransCanada to provide detailed Material Safety Data Sheets and information about the diluent and the source crude oil to support response preparations and address safety concerns in advance of any spills. Alternative Pipeline Routes CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require the consideration of project alternatives in an EIS, and characterize the alternatives analysis as the ?heart? of an EIS.6 The DSEIS has been signi?cantly improved by considering more alternative routes, including an alternative that would avoid crossing the Sand Hills Region in Nebraska, reducing impacts to this fragile ecosystem. Another signi?cant issue in the consideration of alternative routes for this Project has been the potential for impacts to the Ogallala Aquifer in the event of a spill. The alternative route in Nebraska has avoided most of the impacts to the Sand Hills Region, but still crosses the Ogallala Aquifer. The alternative laid out in the DSEIS that would avoid the Ogallala Aquifer is the 1-90 Corridor Alternative, which largely follows the path of existing pipelines. The 1-90 Corridor Altemative would signi?cantly reduce the length of pipeline crossing the Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which includes the Ogallala formation, and would further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to critical groundwater resources. We are concerned, however, that the DSEIS does not provide a detailed analysis of the Keystone Corridor Altemative routes, which would parallel the existing Keystone Pipeline and likely further reduce potential environmental impacts to groundwater resources. By determining that these routes are not reasonable, the DSEIS does not provide an analysis of their potential impacts suf?cient to enable a meaningful comparison to the proposed route and other alternatives. The Keystone Corridor Alternatives were determined not to be reasonable alternatives primarily on the basis that these routes are longer than the proposed Project?s route, and that additional pipeline miles would be needed to connect to Bakken MarketLink project, which would allow the proposed Project to also transport crude from North Dakota and Montana. As we have indicated in the past, we believe these alternative routes could further reduce risks to 6 40 cm. 1502.14 groundwater resources. We recommend that the Final EIS either provide more detailed information as to why these alternatives were not considered reasonable or analyze these alternatives in more detail. Communityr and Environmental Justice Impacts The DSEIS provides a comprehensive analysis of community demographics, including minority, low-income, and tribal populations, along TransCanada?s proposed pipeline route. We are especially appreciative of the effort to identify and contact each of the Local Emergency Flaming Committees regarding the status of their emergency response plans, and to provide that information in the DSEIS. We also commend your recognition that environmental justice communities may be more vulnerable to health impacts from a spill, and appreciate your efforts to consider communities? access to health care, including consideration of ?Health Professional Shortage Areas and Medically Underserved Areas? located along the proposed pipeline route. EPA appreciates TransCanada?s commitment to conduct cleanup and restoration and to provide alternative water supplies to affected communities in the event of an oil discharge affecting not only surface waters, but also groundwater. We recommend that these commitments be clearly documented as proposed permit conditions. We believe this would give important assurances to potentially affected communities of TransCanada?s responsibilities in the event of an oil discharge that affects either surface or groundwater resources. Conclusion Based on our review, we have rated the DSEIS as EO-2 (?Environmental Objections Insuf?cient Information?) (see enclosed ?Summary of Rating Definitions and Follow-up Actions?). We look forward to continuing to work with you and to provide assistance as you prepare the Final EIS. We also look forward to working with you as you determine whether approving the proposed project serves the national interest under Executive Order 133 37 ?Issuance of Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States?. Please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Susan Bromm, Director, Of?ce of Federal Activities, at (202) 564-5400 if you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments. Sin ly, 1 es Enclosure Summary of Rating De?nitions and Follow-up Action Environmental lmDact of the Action LO?-Lack of Objections The EPA review has not identi?ed any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed Opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. EC?Environmental Concerns The EPA review has identi?ed environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application ofmitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EO--Environmental Objections The EPA review has identi?ed signi?cant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. [EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory The EPA review has identi?ed adverse environmental impacts that are ofsufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the ?nal EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. Adequacy of the impact Statement Category l--Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s} of the preferred alternative and those ofthe alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition ofclarifying language or information. Category 2--lnsuf?cient Information The draft EIS does not contain suf?cient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identi?ed additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3?lnadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially signi?cant environmental impacts ofthe action, or the EPA reviewer has identi?ed new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside oftbe spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially signi?cant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identi?ed additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes ofthe NEPA andior Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft On the basis ofthe potential signi?cant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the EEG. GREG WALOEN, OREGON FRANK RALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY CHAIRMAN RANKING MEMBER ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS Congress at the ?antteh ?tates 39mm of Representatth COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515?6115 Majority [2021225?2927 Minority [202i 225?3641 April 2, 2018 The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Administrator Pruitt: We write in regard to troubling reports of your Washington, DC. housing arrangement during a six~month period in 2017. Press reports last week revealed that you rented a single bedroom in a Capitol Hill townhouse ?that is co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist,? J. Steve Hart,l We are concerned that the unique rental arrangement, in which you only paid rent on the nights you were in town for use of one bedroom in the home, could be a potential con?ict of interest. According to records, Mr. Hart is the Chairman of the lobbying ?rm Williams and Jensen, which counts among its clients numerous businesses with both direct and indirect energy and environmental interests including Exxon-Mobil, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. and Colonial Pipeline. Speci?cally, Mr. Hart lobbies on multiple energy and environmental topics for various clients, including Cheniere Energy Inc. on ?issues related to the export of liquefied natural gas.?2 This arrangement potentially violates the Ethics Pledge you signed upon becoming the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator.3 Executive Order 13770 requires ?[e]very appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, More Cabinet trouble Trump? EPA chieflived in condo tied to lobbyist ?power coupie, ABC News (Mar. 29, 2018) 2 Center for Responsive Politics, Jack Steven Hart Lobbyist Profile: Summary, 20] 7 3 US. Environmental Protection Agency, Pruitt Ethics Pledge (Feb. 21, 2017). The Honorable Scott Pruitt April 2, 2018 Page 2 2017? to be ?contractually committed to? an ?Ethics Pledge.?4 The pledge states, will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration ofmy service as an appointee."5 By signing an ethics pledge on February 21, 2017, you accepted and acknowledged the provisions and affirmed your understanding that these obligations are enforceable under law. As Administrator, you have taken a number of actions to bene?t industries regulated by EPA, and this news raises the possibility that you may have personally benefited from your relationship with industry. Specifically, these reports raise serious questions as to whether this arrangement unduly in?uenced any decisions you made that potentially affected the business of William and Jensen clients. In order to understand whether your arrangements have complied with all applicable federal ethics regulations and agency policies, please provide a response to the following, no later than April 16, 2018 1. Press reports indicate you solicited use of this property.6 How did you identify and obtain use of this property? Was the rental publically advertised, were you contacted by the owner(s) or an intermediary, or did you or anybody operating on your behalf solicit the use of the prOperty? How long did you rent this property? What is the form of the rental agreement? Please share any and all documents pertaining to the rental of this property by you and other members of your family. 2. Press reports state that you paid a total of $6,100 from March 18 through September 1, 2017, is that correct?7 If so, what is the breakdown of the payments? If not, what was the total you paid for renting this property? 3. What is the fair market rate for this property? Did you pay the fair market rate for the property? 4. When you were out of town and not paying rent on the bedroom, did you leave any personal materials in the bedroom or are you aware of whether or not the bedroom was rented when you were not in Washington? 4 Exec. Order No. 13770, 82 Fed. Reg. 9333 (Feb. 3, 2017). 5 Exec. Order No. 13770, 82 Fed. Reg. 9333 (Feb. 3, 2017). 6 As new details emerge, Scott Pruitt ?3 housing arrangements come under scrutiny, Washington Post (Mar. 30, 2018) environment/wp/20 1 8/ 03/ 3 7 EPA Chief ?s $50-a?Night Rental Raises White House Angst, Bloomberg Politics (Mar. 30, 201 8) ?3 0/epa?chief?s?5 O?a?night?rental?said-to- raise?white?house?angst). The Honorable Scott Pruitt April 2, 2018 Page 3 5. Press reports suggest that your lease only granted you access to the one bedroom, is this indeed the case?8 On your nights staying at the home, did you ever have access to the other areas of the house? 6. Press reports also indicate that your daughter stayed at the home for a time in another bedroom in the house.9 Was this bedroom paid for as part of your lease or a separate lease with the owners? If not, how would you explain that this was not a gift? 7. Is the Of?ce of Government Ethics (OGE) aware of this rental? Did it review or approve your use of this property before you began staying at the prepeity or entered into an agreement for use of the property? If so, did OGE raise any concerns about the unique arrangement or were they aware that you, or members of your family, might be using other areas of the house besides the one bedroom where you stayed? 8. Did any EPA ethics of?cial review or approve your use of this property before you began staying at the property or entered into an agreement for use of the property? If so, did any EPA ethics official raise any concerns about the unique arrangement or were they aware that you, or members of your family, might be using other areas of the house besides the one bedroom where you stayed? 9. Press reports suggest you spent four days last December in Morocco where you ?talked with of?cials about their interest in importing natural gas?10 despite the fact that EPA has no role in overseeing or promoting, U.S. natural gas exports. Williams and Jensen represents a number of clients in the natural gas industry and J. Steven Hart speci?cally represented Cheniere Energy, Inc. a producer and exporter of lique?ed natural gas.11 Were you living at this property during the period in which this trip was conceived, planned or undertaken? Did you or any other EPA political appointees have any conversations with Mr. Hart or other William and Jensen lobbyists regarding the natural gas interests of any of their clients or your trip to Morocco? 8 EPA Chief?s $50-a-Niglzt Rental Raises White House Angst, Bloomberg Politics (Mar. 30, 2018) 9 EPA chiefPruittjoined byfamily in condo tied to lobbyist ?power couple, ABC News (Mar. 31, 2018) Scott Pruitt, EPA. Chief, Rented Residence From. Wife ofEnergy Lobbyist, New York Times (Mar. 30, 2018) 10 Scott Pruitt and a crew aides just spentfour days in Morocco promoting natural gas, Washington Post (Dec. 13, 2017). Scott Pruitt, EPA. Chief, Rented Residence From Wife ofEnergy Lobbyist, New York Times (Mar. 30, 2018) The Honorable Scott Pruitt April 2, 2018 Page 4 We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you have questions, please contact Caitlin Haberrnan or Jon Monger of the Democratic Committee staff at (202) 225-3 641. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr. Ranking Member 9m. AW Paul D. Tonko Ranking Member Subcommittee on Environment Co: The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman Diana DeGette Ranking Member Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations The Honorable Gregg Harper, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations The Honorable John Shimkus, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment