The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Ernest Monizs nomination as energy secretary on April 9th. Reactions to his nomination has split the environmental community. Advocacy groups such as Public Citizen and Food & Water Watch are campaigning against his nomination, but the Natural Resources Defense Council has praised his work on advancing clean energy based on efficiency and renewable power.
Much of the criticism of Moniz centers on his extensive ties to industry. He has served on advisory boards for oil giant BP and General Electric and was a trustee of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, a Saudi Aramco-backed nonprofit organization. In 2011, Moniz was the chief author of an influential study for MIT on the future of natural gas. According to a new report by the Public Accountability Initiative, Moniz failed to disclose that he had taken a lucrative position at a pro-drilling firm called ICF International just days before the study was released.
Kevin Connor, Justin Elliott talking:
this is kind of the classic revolving door situation. As President Obama mentioned when he nominated him to be energy secretary earlier this month, Moniz was an undersecretary in the department in President Clintons second term. After, he went back to MIT, but he also took a number of positions on boards of large energy companies or advisory councils, as you mentioned, that includes BP. It included a uranium enrichment company called USEC.
And I think theres sort of two reasons why this is important. One is, some of these companies do business with the Energy Department and seek contracts and loan guarantees from the department. The other is, people in the environmental community think that this may inform how Ernest Moniz sets research priorities, so people are concerned that hesthat hes going to call for research on fossil fuels to the detriment of research on renewables, for example.
theres kind of two prongs on that front. One is, personally, Moniz did a six-year stintpaid, although BP wont tell me how muchon BPs science advisory council. Its not really clear what he did. They dontBP doesnt have to reveal much about it in their public SEC filings. At the same time, BP is one of the main funders of the MIT Energy Initiative. I think they have givengiven or pledged a total of $50 million over the past few years. So hes clearlyhes clearly close to that company.
in sciences and, in particular, in sort of the energy secretary, its increasinglyits increasingly common. I mean, Steven Chu, the outgoing energy secretary, whos also an academic, actually also had close ties to BP. BP had given a bunch of money to Steven Chus lab at the University of California, Berkeley, and Chu picked a BP executive to be one of his undersecretaries. And Chu was later involved in the governments response to the Gulf oil spill. So, I mean, I think this isthis is certainly common if youre going to be picking an academic whos involved in energy, and particularly fossil fuel research.
Moniz has spoken in favor of renewable energy. I mean, I think the best way to sort of interpret his nomination is that he fits in with what Obama has called his “all-of-the-above” energy policy, which is to embrace things like fracking, continued use of oil, nuclear energy, but also develop wind and solar. And I think that thats where Ernest Moniz is on energy policy.
Monizs nomination prompted us at the Public Accountability Initiative to take a closer look at an influential study that MIT did on “The Future of Natural Gas,” as it was called, in 2011. It was issued by the Energy Initiative, which Moniz was the director of. And it gave a very pro-gasput a very pro-gas spin on fracking and shale gas extraction, said that natural gas was a bridge or will be a bridge to a low-carbon future, said that the environmental impacts related to fracking are challenging but manageable, and also endorsed natural gas exports, which is a very industry-friendly position to take.
It immediately, you know, prompted some criticism from people who pointed to the fact that the report was actually industry-funded, much like the initiative itself. But it was extremely influential. It was designed to influence policymakers. Moniz testified before Congress on the report. It had immediate impact, as well. And it came at a critical time for the industry, which was facing significant questions about the safety of fracking, the relative environmental impacts of fracking. And we took a closer look at the study and found that beyond just the industry funding of the study, there were significant conflicts of interest that went undisclosed in the report itself and in presentations of the report, and those involved Moniz and several other key authors of the study. So, as it turns out, it was not only just funded by industry, it was also authored by industry representatives.
Its absolutely outrageous for the Energy Initiative, for Moniz and MIT to pretend this is independent of industry, well, first of all, given the fact that the sponsors of the report are all, you know, industry organizations and companies like Chesapeake Energy. Moniz was attempting to say that it was somehow insulated from the influence of these gas companies, when in fact authors of the study, such as Moniz and Meggs, werehad industry positions at the time.
Meggss quote there is particularly insidious, the fact that he is saying that fracking is safe for the environment, when he had actually joined Talisman Energy, a gas company, one of the most active frackers in the Marcellus Shale, a month before the study was released. So he is speaking to a roomful of journalists there, presenting a report designed to influence policy, and not disclosing that he is on the industry payroll. That is perhaps the last person in that room who should be presenting that finding or having anything to do with authoring that kind of report. And yet MIT and Moniz thought it was appropriate to put that spokesperson forward. So, it just goes to the fact that MIT was really sort of presenting an industry brochure here with a lot of pro-gas, industry advocacy talking points, and not revealing that there were significant conflicts of interest here.
one thing to note is, Ernest Moniz is getting a confirmation hearing next month, and as part of that, he has to release a personal financial disclosure, and also, at some point later, hell have toan ethics agreement will become public. So we should actually learn more about his current and recent involvement in these companies and possibly also stock holdings and that sort of thing, so it should be interesting. I think this story isnt over yet.
one of the things that surprised me, actually, as I was researching this story, is the extent to which the MIT Energy Initiative is working with industry. I mean, its well known that they and other energy research projects get industry funding. But if you look at their annual reports and even their website, they say, if you give us money as a company, we will help you achieve specific business goals. So, I mean, in a lot of the coverage of Moniz, he has been presented as an academic, which he is, but in some ways I think the traditional categories are sort of failing ussort of academic versus business executive. I mean, this really is a part ofI mean, its not formally part of BP, but theyre working as essentially a subcontractor for BP. So I think thats reallyand again, I mean, President Obama specifically praised Ernest Monizs ties with business when he introduced him. So, I mean, its up for interpretation whether or not these ties are a good thing, but I think thats really the proper way to see his background and who he is.
“frackademia,” gas-industry-funded academic research. In February of 2012, a year ago, University of Texas Professor Charles Groat published a study that suggested fracking did not lead to groundwater contamination. However, the study did not disclose Groats seat on the board of major Texas fracker Plains Exploration and Production Company, for which he was reportedly given $400,000 in 2011. Thats more than double his university salary.
when he was saying this, had a serious stake in a gas company called PXP, $1.6 million stake, made several hundred thousand dollars a year, over $400,000 a year in 2011, and was going before the public and saying fracking is safe, without disclosing any of these related interests. I mean, theres some question as to whether someone with that sort of stake in the industry should be working on this at all, but at the very least it should be disclosed to the public, to journalists.
And because Groat didnt disclose it, it resulted in a lot of blowback in Texas. The journalists were very concerned that Groat had not highlighted this for them when the report was released, and it resulted in quite a bit of media coverage. The University of Texas ended up commissioning an external review of the study, which concluded that the study should actually be retracted and noted that Groats conflict of interest was quite serious and should have been disclosed. So, the sorts of transgressions that we see at MIT have actually resulted in real accountability at other universities. Groat actually retired as a result of this episode. And the director of the Energy Institute at Texas, which is sort of an analog to MITs Energy Initiativethe director actually resigned in the wake of this external review. So there have been real consequences. There has been real pushback against this trend at other universities. And theres some question as to whether that will happen with MIT.
Im actually not sure of Moniz’s salary at MIT. I dont believe its publicly disclosed there, though it will be released in his financial disclosures. But as a board member at ICF International, which is an oil and gaswell, its a consulting firm with a significant energy practice and significant oil and gas tieshes made over $300,000 in the past two years since joining the board. This is a position where he attends several meetings a year. Its certainly not a full-time position, and yet hes making over $150,000 a year in stock and cash compensation. So these are not insignificant financial ties he has.
actually, the Department of Energy, the majority of its budget goes to maintaining the nations nuclear weapons stockpile, and also theyre in charge of cleanup of old nuclear waste. Hes been a strong and public supporter of nuclear power. And thats actually the area where some of these business ties get into areas of potential conflicts. As I mentioned earlier, he was previously on an advisory council of a uranium enrichment company called USEC, one of theone of the largest, and theyve been seeking a $2 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department to build a centrifuge plant in Ohio. Thats been on hold for a few years while they look into it further. So, it will be interesting to see whether Moniz has to recuse himself from that or whether it gets mentioned in any of the congressional hearings, but thats certainly one of the big areas the Energy Department is active in.
President Obama has long been pro-nuclear powerin fact, is the one who is restarting nuclear power plants after, what, some 40 years of the last one being built. And I think the only reason that effort has stalled is the price of natural gas, because of fracking, going down so low that nuclear power plants have become less economically feasible than they were five years ago.
— source democracynow.org
Justin Elliott, a reporter at ProPublica. He recently wrote an article called “Drilling Deeper: The Wealth of Business Connections for Obamas Energy Pick.”
Kevin Connor, director of the Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit research organization focused on corporate and government accountability. The group recently published a report called “Industry Partner or Industry Puppet? How MITs Influential Study of Fracking Was Authored, Funded, and Released by Oil and Gas Industry Insiders.” Connor is also the co-founder of LittleSis.org, which compiles data on over 40,000 people and organizations with special influence over the political process, including politicians, corporate executives and lobbyists.