U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–124 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–361

J. GREGORY COPELAND NOMINATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATION OF J. GREGORY COPELAND, OF TEXAS, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VICE DAVID R. 

HILL

FEBRUARY 27, 2008

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1

Copeland, J. Gregory, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department of Energy 2

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico .................................... 1

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 9

(1)

J. GREGORY COPELAND NOMINATION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m. in room 366, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, chairman, 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Why don’t we go ahead with the hearing? 

The Committee meets this morning to consider the nomination of 

J. Gregory Copeland to be General Counsel at the Department of 

Energy. We’d also planned to consider the nomination of Stanley 

Suboleski to be Assistant Secretary for Energy for Fossil Energy, 

but he’s asked that his name be withdrawn. 

Mr. Copeland is a senior partner in the law firm of Baker Botts 

in Houston, where he heads the firm’s energy litigation practice. 

He brings to the table 35 years of experience in complex litigation 

in all sectors of the energy industry. He’s tried cases involving oil, 

and natural gas, and coal, and nuclear, and gasoline, and electricity during the course of his long career. 

We appreciate his willingness to serve in this important position 

and welcome the opportunity to consider his nomination. Let me 

defer to Senator Domenici for any statement that he would like to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Senator DOMENICI. Let me say thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. We’re here this morning to consider the nominee for an extremely important position in the Department of Energy. As the 

Department presses on with its final year to implement administration policies, it must have experienced and savvy lawyers heading up its legal team. 

Greg Copeland, the nominee before us today, by the Department’s General Counsel to be that, certainly has the credentials to 

fill that bill. His extensive litigation experience in energy matters 

makes him an able candidate for this position. 

That said, Mr. Copeland will have a daunting task in rapidly familiarizing himself with the Department and the plethora of programs that it is charged with implementing. In that regard, I’m 

2

going to thank Chairman Bingaman for scheduling this hearing so 

soon after the nomination, and I hope that we’ll quickly be able to 

report and permit him to take this job which, for some unknown 

reason, he desires. 

I welcome Mr. Copeland to the committee and look forward to his 

testimony. I do mean sincerely that we thank you so much, and I 

say I don’t understand only in that it is a tough, tough job for a 

relatively few number of months, but we need you. So maybe that’s 

the reason you’re doing it. If it is, I’m very appreciative. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The rules of the committee that apply 

to all nominees require that they be sworn in connection with their 

testimony. Mr. Copeland, could you stand and raise your right 

hand, please? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you’re about to give 

to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. COPELAND. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. Before you begin your statement, I need to ask three questions that we address to each nominee before this committee. 

The first question is, will you be available to appear before this 

committee and other congressional committees to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress? 

Mr. COPELAND. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. The second question is, are you aware of any personal holdings, investments, or interests that could constitute a 

conflict of interest, or create the appearance of such a conflict, 

should you be confirmed and assume the office to which you’ve 

been nominated by the President? 

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, my investments, my personal 

holdings, and other interests have been reviewed both by myself 

and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. 

I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. 

There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my 

knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The third question, are you involved or 

do you have any assets that are held in blind trust? 

Mr. COPELAND. No, sir, I do not. 

The CHAIRMAN. At this point, our tradition is to invite the nominee to introduce any family member that you have with you, if you 

do have family members with you. 

Mr. COPELAND. I’m sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, my family was 

not able to travel with me. I believe they’re all, though, closely 

looking at the Internet this morning, monitoring what’s going on. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Why don’t you go ahead with your 

opening statement? Then, I’m sure we’ll have some questions. 

TESTIMONY OF J. GREGORY COPELAND, NOMINEE TO BE 

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. COPELAND. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, 

other members of the committee and their staff who are here 

today, I’m honored to appear before you today as the President’s 

nominee to become the Department of Energy’s General Counsel. 

3

By way of introduction, I was born and raised in Frederick, Oklahoma, which is a small farming community in southwest Oklahoma. I went to Culver Military Academy in high school, which is 

in Indiana. I returned to Oklahoma to go to college, and attended 

the University of Oklahoma, where I graduated with a BA degree 

in business and economics. 

I then went south to the University of Texas to attend law 

school, which always garners some comments from people about 

which football team I prefer. I’m not going to disclose that today. 

Immediately upon graduating from law school in December 1972, 

I joined Baker & Botts in Houston, Texas. I’ve been there ever 

since. I’ve only had one job. I’m currently a senior partner in the 

firm and a member of the firm’s executive committee. 

Of interest to you, perhaps, I first decided that I wanted to work 

in the energy field when I was a young law student at the University of Texas. In the winter of 1971–72, I experienced first-hand 

what happens when we have an energy shortage. At that time, as 

you well know, the natural gas pipelines in this country were all 

merchant pipelines, and they were having trouble meeting demand 

because of price caps on natural gas, which had severely limited 

supply that they could obtain from producers. 

The problem became so severe that winter that the university 

closed, and the students were sent home for several days. It 

seemed obvious to me at that point that the United States was 

going to continue to face serious energy challenges, and I decided 

then that I wanted to be involved in addressing them. 

That decision led me to Houston, what some people call the energy capital of the world, and a job with one of the world’s leading 

energy firms. Today, I lead the firm’s energy practice. In the last 

35 years, as the chairman noticed, I have appeared before numerous Federal and State agencies, including the old Federal Power 

Commission, now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the 

SCC, the NRC and others. I’ve appeared in State and Federal court 

in at least 15 different States that I can account for. 

Regardless of where I was or what I was doing, the matters typically involved the energy business in some way. I’ve represented oil 

and gas producers, large and small, refiners, pipelines, gas storage 

companies, utilities, and energy trading companies. I’ve dealt with 

issues relating to oil, gas, gasoline, natural gas, liquids, uranium, 

carbon dioxide, coal bed methane gas, lignite, and nuclear power 

plants, and transmission. 

While in the last half of my career, at least, I’ve been a trial lawyer, mostly. I’ve always been interested in energy policy. Those 

issues go hand in glove, of course, with the legal problems that I’ve 

worked on as a lawyer. I’m very aware today of the broad array 

of difficult issues that we must responsibly confront in order to provide safe, clean, and economical energy that we need in order to 

keep our economy strong. 

As I look back 35 years ago, I can say that I was right in predicting that the energy business would provide interesting challenges. But I can also say that I greatly underestimated those challenges. As I look forward from today into the future, and I think 

the problems that I foresee are far more complex than those I foresaw as a young law student in the 1970s. 

4

I’m very honored that President Bush would ask me to join the 

Department of Energy at this point in time. I’m confident that both 

the President and Secretary Bodman intend to continue working 

hard to deal with these complex issues. I trust that their choice of 

me is a reflection of their judgment that I could step in on short 

notice and assist them and to try to make a difference. I vow to 

you that I will do my best to do that. 

In closing, I would like to thank my friends and the partners in 

my firm who have supported me in taking this step. In particular, 

I must recognize Secretary Baker for his emphasis to the lawyers 

in our firm, and indeed to the profession as a whole, on the need 

for public service. 

Last, but certainly not least, I thank my wife Becky, my son 

Todd, and my daughter Rebecca, for their support in this new endeavor. Like your own families, they have had to endure weeks and 

sometimes months of absence over the last 35 years, but I know 

they support me in this latest endeavor, because they do share an 

awareness of the importance of the job. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Copeland follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. GREGORY COPELAND, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL

COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, Members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to become the Department of Energy’s General Counsel. By way of introduction, I was born and raised in Frederick, 

Oklahoma. I went to high school at the Culver Military Academy, returned to Oklahoma to attend the University of Oklahoma, where I graduated with a BA degree 

in economics, and then attended the University of Texas School of Law where I 

graduated in December, 1972. I joined the firm of Baker Botts in Houston, Texas 

in February, 1973, and I have been there ever since. I am currently a Senior Partner and a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee. 

I first decided that I wanted to work in the energy field when I was a law student. 

While attending the University of Texas in the winter of 1971-72, I experienced 

first-hand what happens when we run short of energy. At that time, natural gas 

pipelines were all merchant pipelines and they were having trouble meeting demand 

because price caps on natural gas had severely reduced the supply of gas that was 

available to them from natural gas producers. That winter the issue became so severe that the university closed and sent its students home. It seemed obvious to me 

even then that the U.S. would face continued energy challenges and I decided that 

I wanted to be involved in addressing them. That decision led me to Houston, the 

energy capital of the world, and a job with one of the world’s leading energy firms. 

Today, I lead our firm’s energy litigation practice. 

In the last 35 years I have appeared before numerous state and federal agencies, 

including the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities Exchange Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I have appeared in state and federal courts in more than 15 states. 

Regardless of the forum, the matters that I handled have typically involved a client that was engaged in the energy business in some way. I have represented oil 

and gas producers, both large and small, refiners, pipelines, gas storage companies, 

utilities and energy trading companies. I have dealt with issues relating to oil, gas, 

gasoline, natural gas liquids, uranium, carbon dioxide, coal bed methane, and gas, 

lignite and nuclear power plants. 

Throughout my career I have been interested in the energy policy issues that go 

hand in glove with the legal problems on which I have worked. I am very aware 

of the broad array of difficult issues that we must responsibly confront today in 

order to provide the safe, clean and economical energy needed to keep our economy 

strong. As I look back on 35 years I can say that I was right in predicting that the 

energy business would provide interesting challenges but I can also say that I greatly underestimated the challenges that lay ahead. And as I look forward it seems 

5

quite apparent that the challenges we face today and into the future are far more 

complex than the problems I foresaw as a young law student in the 1970s. 

I am very honored that President Bush would ask me to join the Department of 

Energy. I am confident that both the President and Secretary Bodman intend to 

continue working hard to deal with these complex issues, and I trust that their 

choice is a reflection of their judgment that could step in on short notice to assist 

them and to make a difference. I vow to you that I will do my best to make that 

happen. 

In closing, I would like to thank my friends and the partners in my firm who have 

supported me in taking this step. In particular, I must recognize Secretary Baker 

for his emphasis to the lawyers in our firm, and indeed to the profession as a whole, 

on the need for public service. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my wife Becky, 

and my two children, Todd and Rebecca, for their support in this new endeavor. 

Like your families, they have had to endure weeks, and sometimes months, of absence over the last 35 years, but I know they support me in this latest endeavor 

because they share an awareness of the importance of the job. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement I would be pleased to answer any 

questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Let me ask a question, 

and then defer to Senator Domenici. One issue that will come up 

very quickly once you’re in this position is the whole issue of 

recusal. I think both the recusal policy here in the committee, but 

also the Government Ethics Rules, obviously, require you to recuse 

yourself from participating, personally and substantially, in matters involving former clients. 

I’m sure you’ve had several former clients that are very involved 

in issues coming before the Department of Energy. How do you see 

that affecting your ability to serve in this as head of the General 

Counsel’s Office there in the Department? How do you anticipate—

how extensive will that problem be? How do you expect to deal 

with it? 

Mr. COPELAND. Based on what I understand to be the ethics 

rules, both of the DOE and the Senate, I have gone over those 

rules carefully with the Ethics Officer of the DOE, both before and 

subsequent to the nomination. Frankly, I’ve had that question 

raised by some of the Senators with whom I’ve spoken in the past 

few weeks. 

I candidly don’t believe it’s going to be a significant problem. I 

think that the matters that are going to come before the Department are not likely to create the kind of conflict that would just 

keep me from being effective in the job. But I have discussed that 

very carefully with the Ethics Officer, and went over this again 

with them yesterday, as a matter of fact, to make sure that I 

wasn’t—I don’t want to take a job and I can’t do anything. It’s 

pointless. 

So I hope I’m going to be able to operate effectively. I know there 

will be occasions where I have to recuse myself, but I don’t expect 

that to cripple me in the job. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Same question, but it seems to me, as you answer it, and as I think about it, we have an awful lot of issues that 

are certainly very unique to the implementation of our new laws, 

to the implementation of brand-new policies around here, and I 

don’t see how many of those are going to require that you not participate because of conflicts of interest. 

6

I don’t believe that’s going to happen. But I do trust you that you 

understand if it does, you must recuse yourself. 

Mr. COPELAND. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Senator DOMENICI. You don’t have any doubt about that. Could 

I just ask, as a matter of personal information—obviously, Secretary Bodman has a very big void, and he needs legal counsel. But 

just how did it come to you that you might serve your country in 

this capacity, pursuant to what you said Secretary Baker’s admonition that you do something? 

This seems to me to—for you to jump out of your big practice for 

10 months, service appears very unique. To our advantage, I would 

say. 

Mr. COPELAND. Actually, it goes all the way back to when I was 

a young lawyer. I actually worked on licensing a couple of nuclear 

plants. Since nobody in my firm knew anything about that, I was 

secunded, in effect, to work with a wonderful gentleman here in 

Washington, named Jack Newman, who then was the head of the 

firm Newman & Holtzinger, and was the Dean of the Nuclear Licensing Industry. 

He was the one that called me last fall and said, ‘‘The White 

House is going to be calling you.’’

Senator DOMENICI. Really? 

Mr. COPELAND. ‘‘Because I’ve given them your name.’’ So, it came 

from Jack. Of course, I have tremendous respect for him and——

Senator DOMENICI. He must have had for you, also. 

Mr. COPELAND. I hope he did. So, you know, I certainly talked 

with people in my firm, including Secretary Baker, and public service is part of the fabric of our firm, and I was encouraged to go 

ahead. Obviously, by the reason of the fact that you’ve asked the 

question, you know I had some concerns about it at this point in 

my career. 

Senator DOMENICI. Of course. 

Mr. COPELAND. But it did seem to me that the Department really 

did need somebody who could come here and get up to speed on 

short notice, and that given the uniqueness of my background, it 

was hard for me to deny that I was a serious candidate for that. 

So here I am. 

Senator DOMENICI. I want to ask one other question. When we 

developed and wrote the Energy Policy Act of 2005—which I’m sure 

by now you know we did, and it’s a rather formidable piece of legislation, with an awful lot of policy changes for America. People don’t 

think we did anything, but that law takes a long time to implement. 

One of the provisions in that law has to do with loan guarantees. Those loan guarantees that now are up—we have $18 billion worth 

of authority. We don’t think it’s—I don’t think it’s enough, but we 

got caught at right at the end, and had to share it with another 

part of the development, and that’s all right with me, as long as 

we get to use it. 

My question to you, it’s been a challenge getting this part of the 

law implemented and getting nuclear power going, although it’s 

doing wonderfully well. Will you commit to us that you will make 

it a priority to do everything you can to expedite implementation 

of this program? 

7

Mr. COPELAND. Yes, sir. I believe very strongly in that program. 

I think it’s very important, and it does need to be pushed as hard 

as it can be pushed. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. I have no further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and 

Senator Domenici for scheduling this hearing. Mr. Copeland, welcome, and I enjoyed our visit the other day in the office. As we discussed, the first area I’m going to ask you about is what you would 

be doing to clean up this mess in terms of environmental cleanup 

at Federal facilities and the Federal contracting debacle. 

I don’t think you can describe it any other way. At Hanford, in 

our part of the country, we’ve seen wholesale failure to meet environmental compliance schedules, massive cost increases, Hanford 

contractors get the bonuses. According to the Department’s Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, all of these independent agencies have pretty much said that these programs are 

a huge mess. 

Now, you, of course, would not be running the cleanup program, 

and I understand that to be the case. But you’re going to be the 

Department’s chief legal official, if confirmed, and certainly environmental compliance agreements are legally binding agreements. 

So what I’d like to know, for the purposes of this morning, is what 

would you do in this position to correct this abysmal, really outlandishly awful record at the Department of poor contracting and 

environmental compliance? 

Mr. COPELAND. Thank you, Senator, and likewise, I enjoyed 

meeting with you the other day. I appreciate your being here today. 

First of all, it probably has gone unnoted that I do have quite a 

bit of experience with construction contracts and litigation in that 

arena. I know, basically, how complex projects are run. I know how 

they get off track, and I know how to analyze what causes them 

to get off track. 

So I think I could be effective in at least quickly understanding 

perhaps some of the problems. It seems to me, based on the limited 

amount of time that I have been studying and preparing to take 

on this position, that the Department of Energy is perhaps, to some 

extent more than other organizations, very dependent on independent contracts to perform all the obligations that they have to 

perform. 

I think, given that situation, if I’m accurate in that assumption, 

that you need to look at every way possible to strengthen the oversight of those contractors. That would be something I would take 

a hard look at. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me ask it in a different way, because you’re 

absolutely right about the independent contractors. If you’re confirmed, I would like you to regularly report to the chairman, and 

the ranking minority member, and I, what the progress is at Hanford. Because, respectfully, we have heard comments much along 

the lines you’ve made and nothing much happens. They go further 

in the hole in terms of environmental compliance. The cost overruns increase, the bonuses continue. It goes on and on. 

So let me ask you, if you would, if confirmed, within 60 days of 

your confirmation, I’d very much like you to send to the chairman, 

8

Chairman Bingaman, and Senator Domenici, so that it could be 

shared with us, what’s being done specifically at Hanford to address these concerns. 

Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one additional question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. 

Senator WYDEN. The only other question I have, Mr. Copeland, 

again along the lines that we talked about up in the office, is you 

represented industry for quite some years. You represented Shell 

Oil in a key case where the company agreed to pay the United 

States $56 million on underpaid royalties in the natural gas area. 

You represented Reliant in a Clayton Act case brought by the 

California Attorney General. This was a settled case, involving the 

withholding of power supplies, a variety of manipulative practices. 

So now, you would be wearing a different hat. You were a lawyer, 

and obviously a very good one, for the clients that you represented. 

But now you have a different set, if confirmed, which essentially 

means that consumer interests, ratepayer interests, taxpayer interests, all be represented. 

Tell me what assurances you can give us this morning that you 

can take on those new hats at this time. 

Mr. COPELAND. You’re right. It is a different hat. I respect that, 

and I understand that, and I would not have taken this job unless 

I thought I could fairly represent all the constituents that the Department of Energy is responsible for. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Copeland, thank you very much for 

being here. We will try to act swiftly to move your nomination to 

the Senate floor for consideration. That will conclude our hearing. 

Mr. COPELAND. Thank you, sir. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:09 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(9)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF J. GREGORY COPELAND TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. As we have discussed, I am concerned that there may be a number 

of Departmental responsibilities and programs that would require your recusal because of your prior representation of clients with interests in the activities. For example, several companies (BP, Marathon, ExxonMobil) have filed comments with 

the Department regarding energy transmission corridors including but not limited 

to CO2 sequestration. Other companies, such as Shell, have significant interests in 

the operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Oil Shale programs. Please 

explain whether or not the following Departmental activities would require your 

recusal: Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) requires the 

Department to participate in the determination of energy corridors on federal land. 

Answer. I have checked with the Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official 

and have been advised that the Executive Branch-wide regulations governing 

recusals that result from prior employment or legal representation, as well as the 

committee’s recusal policy, apply to particular matters involving specific parties in 

which:

• Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from my 

resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or 

• a former client of mine that I represented within the last year, is a party or 

represents a party, for a period of one year after I last provided service to that 

client or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or 

• I participated personally and substantially as a partner or employee in a work 

or service relationship when the matter is one in which the Department of Energy is a party or has a substantial interest, for the duration of my service as 

General Counsel.

ExxonMobil, while a former client of mine, was not a client that I represented 

within the last year. In addition, the Department of Energy was not a party to, and 

did not have a substantial interest in, any of the legal work that I participated personally and substantially in at Baker Botts. 

I have been advised by the Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that 

the determination of energy corridors on federal land is not a particular matter involving specific parties at this time. Therefore, the recusal requirements do not 

apply to any former clients of mine or to Baker Botts. However, in the event that 

it does become a particular matter involving specific parties, I will recuse myself if 

(1) Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from my 

resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or (2) a former client of mine 

that I represented within the last year, is a party or represents a party, for a period 

of one year after I last provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever 

occurs later. 

Question 2. Section 1221 of EPACT 2005 requires the Department to initiate and 

coordinate of Federal authorizations for electric transmission facilities, including the 

designation of National Interest Transmission Corridors. 

Answer. I have been advised by the Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that this initiation and coordination activity is not a particular matter involving 

specific parties at this time. Therefore, the recusal requirements do not apply to any 

former clients of mine or to Baker Botts. However, in the event that it does become 

a particular matter involving specific parties, I will recuse myself if (1) Baker Botts 

is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from my resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or (2) a former client of mine that I represented 

within the last year, is a party or represents a party, for a period of one year after 

I last provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever occurs later. 

10

Question 3. Section 1222 of EPACT 2005 requires the Department’s Power Marketing Administrations to design and construct new transmission facilities in National Interest Transmission Corridors. 

Answer. I have been advised by the Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that the design and construction of new transmission facilities in National Interest Transmission Corridors is not a particular matter involving specific parties 

at this time. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any of my clients within the last year 

or Baker Botts would be involved in this design and construction. However, in the 

event that it does become a particular matter involving specific parties, I will recuse 

myself from any such particular matters involving specific parties in which: (1) 

Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from my resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later; or (2) a former client of mine that 

I represented within the last year, is a party or represents a party, for a period of 

one year after I last provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever 

occurs later. 

Question 4. Operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve including receipt and 

exchange of Royalty-in-Kind oil from any or all U.S. leases and the determination 

of compliance with the conditions established in Section 301 of EPACT 2005. 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, Baker Botts is not involved in particular 

matters involving specific parties that are related to the operation of the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve or entitlement to particular volumes of crude oil from particular 

leases, nor is it likely to become so involved. However, if this unlikely event occurs, 

I will recuse myself from any such particular matters involving specific parties in 

which Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from 

my resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later. I also will recuse myself 

from any such particular matters involving specific parties in which a former client 

of mine that I represented within the last year, is a party or represents a party, 

for a period of one year after I last provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever occurs later. 

Question 5. Establishment and operation of the Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Unconventional Fuels Program pursuant to Section 369 of EPACT 2005. 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge, Baker Botts is not involved in particular 

matters involving specific parties that are related to the operation of the Oil Shale, 

Tar Sands, and Unconventional Fuels Program, nor is it likely to become so involved. However, if this unlikely event occurs, I will recuse myself from any such 

particular matters involving specific parties in which Baker Botts is a party or represents a party for a period of one year from my resignation or confirmation, whichever occurs later. I also will recuse myself from any such particular matters involving specific parties in which a former client of mine that I represented within the 

last year, is a party or represents a party, for a period of one year after I last provided service to that client or my confirmation, whichever occurs later.

Æ