1. LNG EXPORTS AT DOE: The story will mention Ernest's work at DOE expediting the
review process for LNG exports. Can you comment on why the speed up was necessary
and Ernest's thinking behind why LNG exports are so important? How does Ernest feel
about DOE's recent announcement to automatically approve smaller-volume exports
of LNG? How is this recent move by DOE different or similar to Ernest's approach with
LNG export reviews?

As you know, the Secretary answered this question on camera and outlined his thinking on
LNG exports: that, depending on which fuel LNG replaces after its regasification, can
dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, even when shipping-associated emissions are calculated.
China, for example, has significant coal generation; displacing this with imported LNG could
substantially reduce CO2 emissions as well as criteria pollutants in Chinese cities, where the
associated health impacts are serious.
DOE and FERC share responsibilities for approving LNG exports. FERC completed a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the proposed project and DOE made a national
interest determination (NID), pursuant to provisions in the Natural Gas Act. While Secretary
Moniz was running DOE, the Department changed its process for reviewing LNG export to one
in which DOE would act only on applications to export LNG after FERC completed a positive
NEPA review, suspending the DOE’s previous practice of issuing conditional approvals prior to
receiving FERC’s final NEPA review.
The primary motivation for this change was to enable DOE to make better informed decisions
once environmental issues were fully addressed. To further inform its NIDs, DOE supported
external studies on the impacts of a total export volumes (initially 10 bcf/d). If it was
determined that exports were in the national interest, DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy completed
the licensing process in a judicious manner and the license was then signed by its Assistant
Secretary.
On the broader issue of the role of natural gas in transitioning to low carbon energy, we refer
you to President Obama’s 2016 remarks in an interview with Leonardo DiCaprio:
“Interestingly enough, one of the reasons why we’ve seen a significant reduction of coal usage
in the United States is not because of regulations. It’s been because natural gas got really
cheap as a consequence of fracking. Now, there are a lot of environmentalists who absolutely
object to fracking because their attitude is essentially it’s done sloppy and releases methane
that is even a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It leaks into people’s water supplies
and aquifers, and when done improperly can really harm a lot of people. And their attitude is
we got to leave that stuff in the ground if we’re going to solve climate change. And I get all
that. On the other hand, the fact that we’re transitioning from coal to natural gas means less
greenhouse gases. Same thing for nuclear power.
… So I say all that not because I don’t recognize the urgency of the problem. It is because
we’re going to have to straddle between the world as it is and the world as we want it to be,
and build that bridge.”

 Secretary Moniz supported President Obama in building a bridge that would take us to the
low-carbon economy as expeditiously as possible given technical, social and political realities.
We’ll leave it to others to analyze/contrast this with current DOE policy.
2. METHANE: During the interview, we discussed EDF's latest methane research from
the oil and gas sector which has raised some concerns over natural gas as a bridge
fuel. This is a central tenet of Ernest's MIT natural gas study. Does Ernest still see LNG
as a bridge fuel? What does he say to folks and groups that say the natural gas buildout
is locking in the fuel for decades beyond 2050 and undercutting renewable energy
development and investment?

The Secretary answered this question on camera, outlining his views of the role natural gas
will play in long-term efforts to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and to reach Paris Agreement
goals.
It is a fact that the conversion of coal to natural gas and renewables has driven down CO2
emissions (EIA analysis concludes that well over 60% of the recent US GHG emissions
reductions are attributable to coal to gas fuel switching) and also that natural gas combustion
without CCUS will at some point be too carbon intensive for a deeply decarbonized electricity
sector. That is the definition of a bridge (see President Obama’s remarks above).
Two continuing challenges have to be addressed: the environmental footprint from natural
gas production must be continuously reduced, and methane leaks must be reduced from
production to end use.
In this context, it must be remembered that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long
time, while methane has a relatively short residence. Success in ratcheting down methane
leaks will largely eliminate methane’s contributions to climate challenge – an early positive
gain, while CO2 in the atmosphere accumulates and compounds and continues to drive global
warming (absent major progress in the deployment of technologies for direct carbon removal
from the atmosphere.) This is why Secretary Moniz strongly supported the Obama
Administration’s methane rule, as well as technologies and policies to reduce CO2 emissions
in the near-, mid- and long-term.
The Secretary also mentioned on camera the vital role innovation will play in moving to a lowcarbon economy; the story should reflect these views as well as additional points that are
discussed in greater detail below.
3.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The story will also talk about Ernest's financial ties to the
oil and gas industry. This includes his disclosure form from before he became Energy
Secretary, which listed his roles as a paid consultant for firms like BP, GE,
Schlumberger, Riverstone Equity (a major fossil fuel investor), and IHS, as well as his
board seats on KAPSARC and ICF International (which was hired by API to produce
studies on the economic benefits of LNG exports). Ernest terminated his
roles/divested his stock in these entities prior to becoming secretary. Many of the
entities listed above played an active role in lobbying or advocating in favor of LNG

 exports and/or crude oil exports, whether directly, or as a firm contracted by
industry. Can Ernest comment on the nature of his work in the various contracts notes
above and his approach in dealing with potential conflicts of interest as it relates to
developing energy policy? What does Ernest make of his critics, who say his financial
relationships with the oil and gas industry cloud his judgment when it comes to climate
change policies or low-carbon solutions?

The Secretary has no financial relationships with oil and gas producers. He currently serves
on the public board of a large NG user (Southern Company, which has reduced carbon
emissions 36% and is committed to very low to no carbon emissions from electricity
generation by 2050.)
Then-Prof. Moniz fully complied with the Obama Administration ethics requirements, the most
stringent of any Presidential Administration, was vetted by the Senate Energy Committee and
approved to be Energy Secretary on a 97-0 vote. He followed all Obama Administration ethics
guidelines, including ongoing compliance with the two-year post-employment ethics pledge
that remains in effect until January 2019.
Secretary Moniz is deeply committed to mitigating climate change using all available tools and
technologies and believes it is foolish – indeed threatening to the planet -- to insist on favored
technologies rather than accelerating the deployment of technologies that will achieve the
overall objective of deep decarbonization. While some may have reasons for favoring
particular technologies irrespective of open questions about system costs (an issue that is
critical to those in communities, countries and continents that can’t afford high energy prices),
system reliability and security, Secretary Moniz understands both the promise and limitations
of the full range of technologies and is unequivocally committed to outcomes and results that
will help the US and the world meet Paris targets by mid-century.
President Obama also embraced this ‘’all of the above’’ approach to get to deep
decarbonization, and Secretary Moniz continues to advance this approach in his current
activities.
4. NAT GAS STUDY: At MIT, Ernest also headed MITEI, which has elicited similar criticism
for its industry funding. During the interview, I specifically brought up the American
Clean Skies Foundation, a nonprofit that was originally co-founded by Aubrey
McClendon and was described in several media reports at the time as a front/astroturf
group for the natural gas industry considering its ties to Chesapeake Energy. Ernest
responded that no one has questioned the integrity of the study itself. I was hoping
Ernest could elaborate on this more as it relates to the study's overview of methane
research at that time (the study got some criticism that it down played methane leaks).
Also, how would Ernest characterize the overall impact the MIT study has had on LNG
exports from a regulatory and market perspective?

As you note, the Secretary responded to this question on camera and his support for achieving
early gains from reducing methane leaks.

 All of the ‘’Future of…’’ (Nuclear Power, Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, and Solar
Energy) that Professor Moniz led at MIT (he necessarily withdrew from the solar study when
he became Secretary) had multiple sponsors, including some directly engaged in the industry.
All were cast in the framework of a low carbon future (thus, the Coal study was focused
strongly on CCS).
The Advisory Groups for each were also drawn from multiple perspectives (e.g. the Natural
Gas study included advisors from the American Wind Energy Association, NRDC, Sierra Club,
and the Barclays Capital Clean Tech Initiative). Neither the sponsors nor the advisers were
responsible for the analytical approach, the findings and recommendations of these critical
multidisciplinary studies; this was the responsibility of the MIT researchers who attended
Advisory Group meetings for the studies and considered all inputs into their independent,
informed and objective analysis
The MIT Future of Natural Gas Study included 19 senior faculty or senior researchers at the
Institute, all of whom were deeply committed to mitigating climate change; it concluded that
natural gas would displace coal between now and roughly 2035, that it would become too
carbon intensive to meet climate targets by around 2040, but could contribute in the long
term as carbon capture and sequestration technologies were developed and deployed for gas
generation and other uses.
The Future of Natural Gas study included a separate appendix that discussed the relative
global warming potential of methane leakage; the report also included a separate appendix
with a meta-analysis of groundwater impacts of unconventional natural gas production,
summarizing all of the major information known at that time.
The MIT studies have stood the test of time. Updates of the studies would, if performed,
incorporate all that has been learned in the meantime, which is considerable in all cases. We
note that EDF studies on methane leaks were not completed until long after the 2011 release
date of the MIT Future of Natural Gas study and that Secretary Moniz, in consultation with
EDF leadership, strongly supported the Obama Administration’s methane rule.
Industry will ultimately be responsible for deploying clean energy technologies at scale.
The MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) was designed and implemented with industry funding as a
major, purposeful and essential component of a successful transition to a clean energy
economy. The overwhelming number of industry-supported MITEI projects are clean energy
projects. For example, the Italian oil and gas company Eni committed several million dollars
per year to establish an advanced solar technologies research center at MIT. The industry also
supported hundreds of first year graduate student fellowships and over a hundred clean
energy seed fund projects using pooled resources during Prof. Moniz’s tenure as MITEI
Director (practices that continue to this day).
This approach – industry as an essential part of the climate mitigation solution -- was recently
taken by Pope Francis, who in June convened a group of industry and finance sector leaders
to discuss climate change mitigation. Secretary Moniz participated in this dialogue at the
Vatican, which brought together those responsible for delivering energy services — critical to
lifting up the world’s poor, a key focus of the Pope — and leaders in global finance, who provide

 long-term financing for the energy economy. The discussion was an important step toward
achieving environmental, economic, and social justice and fostered a new spirit of
convergence towards climate change solutions.
5.

CRUDE OIL & CONDENSATE: We talked about this briefly at the interview. Ernest
suggested that his 2013 comments suggesting the crude oil export ban might be in
need of a review were a product of policy considerations, not industry lobbying. Can he
elaborate on this? Also, under Ernest, DOE's EIA set about crafting a new definition for
condensate, an ultralight form of oil that was in contention during 2013-2014 as
companies were trying to figure out what did and didn't constitute crude oil that was
not eligible for export. Can Ernest talk a little about his interactions with Commerce
and then-Commerce Secretary Pritzker during this time? I received a FOIA that showed
Ernest was looped into a lot of discussions with Commerce as the agency was
determining what stance to take on the crude oil export ban.

The Secretary’s 2013 comments in response to a question about oil exports was that many
issues (exports, DOE organization, etc.) deserved re-examination in light of the completely
different energy markets from those of the 1970s. Those differences are even more
pronounced today.
As Secretary Moniz pointed out in Congressional testimony in 2015, the Commerce
Department was the agency decision-maker for addressing the ban on crude oil exports and
led the inter-agency discussion on this policy change. In this capacity, the Commerce
Department quite sensibly sought the input of the EIA energy experts as it addressed the
complicated issue of defining condensates for potential rule making. Secretary Moniz was
throughout his tenure a champion of collegial inter-agency cooperation to bring as much
expertise as possible to bear on many energy issues that engaged multiple Administration
agencies. This reached a zenith in producing the Quadrennial Energy Review, which reflected
the input of more than 20 agencies.
Secretary Moniz was also the leader in getting the G-7 leaders to change the oil-centric
definition of energy security that had persisted since the oil embargoes of the early 1970s,
underscoring his strong belief that climate change was a critical energy security concern. The
so-called G-7 energy security principles were advanced by Secretary Moniz in Rome in 2014
and later adopted by the G-7 leaders that same year under President Obama’s leadership.
Initially drafted by Secretary Moniz, these principles included support for:
•
•
•

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating the transition to a lowcarbon economy as key contributors to enduring energy security
Enhancing energy efficiency in demand and supply
Continuing the deployment of clean and sustainable energy technologies and
promotion of continued investment in research and innovation

Consistent with these principles, Secretary Moniz then developed and advanced Mission
Innovation, an initiative that promoted the doubling of national investments in clean energy

 innovation over the course of five years. Twenty countries initially joined in Mission Innovation,
which was announced by President Obama and other world leaders in Paris in 2015.
Mission Innovation has a Secretariat in London and continues to work to advance this goal.
The last two DOE budgets under Secretary Moniz reflected this doubling commitment on the
part of the US. The Secretary has always promoted clean energy technology innovation as key
to reaching climate goals, including in the 2010 PCAST report that he co-led with Maxine
Savitz (now a member of EFI’s Advisory Board).
6. EFI and EJM: Can Ernest clarify how these organizations are the same and
different? From what I can tell, they are distinct organizations with different purposes: one is
a nonprofit think tank, the other is a for profit consultancy. But the staff looks to be identical.
I'm unclear as to whether the work products are identical, or overlap, e.g. will a report that EFI
authored be partly funded, sponsored or have overlap and/or be affiliated with EJM? or vice
versa? How does EFI maintain its independence from EJM? How does Ernest juggle the
differing objectives of these two entities? I also noticed that it's not immediately clear to folks
that EFI and EJM are run by the same folks and operate out of the same office. Can you talk
about this and how Ernest is handling disclosures as it relates to both these entities? Will EFI
be making its list of funders public? Will EJM be making its list of clients public? Also, I just
wanted to double check that EFI is a tax-exempt organization? I was unable to find a 990 on
file for the organization and was unable to confirm its tax exempt status with the IRS. I did
find corporate filings for both organizations with DC though

Energy Futures Initiative. The mission of the Energy Futures Initiative, Inc. (EFI) is to “harness
the power of innovation to build a secure, affordable, low-carbon energy future.” EFI is
committed to rigorous, unbiased analysis. All EFI-funded projects are governed by two guiding
principles:
1. All work performed by EFI is made public on its website and using various social media
tools; and
2. EFI retains full control over the methodology, analysis and the final conclusions and
recommendations of its projects (similar to the approach taken with the MIT “Future
of …” studies).
As noted on its website, EFI is a non-profit Corporation organized under the District of
Columbia Non-profit Corporation Act. Under the provisions of the DC Act, EFI engages in public
policy analysis and education programs. Net income of EFI is subject to federal and state
taxation. Any after tax net income that is accumulated by EFI must be applied to charitable
purposes.
EFI is not a registered 501(c) 3 entity. It has two years to make a decision on 501(c) 3 status
and EFI has only been in existence for a little over a year. EFI does not solicit contributions
from the general public so tax exempt status would provide little or no benefit in terms of
finances. EFI receives its funding from Foundations, corporations and other private sector
sources (nonprofits and individuals) and EFI receives no government funding. EFI does not
engage in either lobbying activities or foreign government representation.

 Plans and priorities for EFI projects are guided by a 20-person International Advisory Board of
experts in energy markets, the environment, finance and government policy. The Advisory
Board meets in person annually, with additional discussions taking place with sub-groups and
individuals on specific issues. For example, Advisory Board members and others are advisors
to a new project on carbon direct removal.
EJM Associates, LLC (EJM). EJM Associates, LLC (EJM) is a separate entity, a consultancy
established by the principals of EFI. EJM provides advisory services to businesses and trade
organizations, often involving business proprietary issues.
EJM obtains professional and administrative support services from contracts with EFI, with
individual EFI Distinguished Associates, from other professional services firms and from
independent contractors on an as-needed basis. EJM does not have dedicated staff; where
EJM obtains services from EFI, the services are provided on a time and materials basis, at
cost. EJM revenues include professional services fees, such as speaking and other fees
generated by former Secretary Moniz. EJM does not engage in either lobbying activities or
foreign government representation.
7. McLarty and Scowcroft: EJM is involved in a three-way partnership with McLarty and
Scowcroft (EJM also has a similar partnership with Denton's, but from what I can tell, that
does not involve McLarty and Scowcroft's firms). Can you explain more about the nature
of this partnership? Is EJM, EFI and/or Ernest involved in any business dealings related to
either firm's energy and mining practices? How does EJM's work with McLarty and
Scowcroft kept separate from the work of EFI (or vice versa)? Both McLarty and Scowcroft
sit on the advisory board for EFI, can you comment on this?

EJM Relationships with Other Entities. EJM is a strategic advisor to Dentons and provides
occasional complementary services for appropriate clients. None of the work with Dentons
involves LNG issues. EJM has no knowledge of clients Dentons may have in the LNG business
and Dentons is not involved in EFI. EJM also has provided professional services for other law
firms.
EJM is physically co-located with McLarty Associates and with The Scowcroft group, employing
space leased from McLarty. To date, there are no joint projects with either. EJM has had no
discussions with McLarty on LNG export issues.
As individuals, Mack McLarty and General Scowcroft bring to the EFI Advisory Board a wealth
of experience and perspective in the energy and national security arenas.
###