When President Obama first took office, I described the team he was putting together as a “Green Dream Team.” The President’s selection of people like Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, Nancy Sutley as the head of the Council on Environmental Quality, Carol Browner, an LCV board member, to fill a White House position overseeing energy and climate, and Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator made possible some historic achievements during his first term, including landmark investments in clean energy, raising fuel efficiency standards – twice – for cars and proposing the first-ever national limits from power plants, some of our nation’s dirtiest polluters.

While we’ll miss leadership of those moving on from the administration, with a new term comes new champions. With Secretary Kerry, the President has chosen an ally to lead the State Department who has led on climate change for decades and been a tireless advocate for policies that are good for our planet and our national security. In choosing former REI CEO Sally Jewell to be Interior Secretary, President Obama has brought on board someone that’s been nationally recognized for her conservation efforts, with a unique appreciation for public lands. She’s the right choice to protect our nation’s national treasures. And by selecting Gina McCarthy to lead the EPA, we’ll have a true leader protecting the air we breathe and defending public health. There’s a reason Republicans and Democrats easily confirmed her as head of the EPA’s clean air division – she cares more about progress than partisanship. We are delighted that Heather Zichal, President Obama’s top advisor for energy and climate change, is continuing her important work to combat the climate crisis.

The President’s selections make clear that he wants to build on an already strong environmental legacy. We expect President Obama to continue investing in clean technologies, protecting our public lands and addressing the climate crisis. If I could give a single piece of advice to the President’s new team, I would tell them never to forget that the America people have their backs and will support them as they stand up against Big Oil and corporate polluters to combat the climate crisis and protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.

President Obama’s nominees face a myriad of challenges in the coming years, from addressing the real and growing effects of climate change to solving our nation’s energy challenges and preparing for and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. They have to do all of that while simultaneously ensuring the quality of the science they produce, despite an incredibly challenging economic environment—federal funding for scientific R&D has been steadily decreasing, reaching its lowest level in more than a decade.

They also face a significant challenge in ensuring that policy decisions are informed by best scientific knowledge available. History tells us that scientific research has the potential to be a game changer for America’s global competitiveness, national security, and public health and safety. For example, improvement of 24-hour temperature forecasts save U.S. electricity producers $166 million annually, and the advance warnings that come from hurricane forecasting, tracking, and landfall predictions (which utilize Earth observing satellites, supercomputers, and sensors) protect millions of lives and livelihoods each year.

In addition to committing to keep their agency’s science strong, one of the best things this new class of administrators can do for the nation’s energy and environmental policy solutions is to ensure that that scientific research does not get lost in the chorus of political rhetoric.

To assess President Obama’s new picks for EPA, DOE and Interior, I asked my new colleague, Bernadette Rappold, who has just joined McGuireWoods after spending the past 15 years at the EPA, to provide her insights:

What do Obama’s picks say about how ambitious he hopes to be in the next four years? What agency will be the most active in forming policy? If these nominees are confirmed by the Senate, what advice would you give to Jewell, McCarthy, and Moniz as they prepare to accept Obama’s key energy and environment Cabinet posts?

With his nominees to head Energy, Interior and EPA, the president has doubled down on his “all of the above approach” to energy. Despite rhetoric from pundits – and the Administration’s ongoing pressure on coal – the president has largely stayed out of industry’s way on hydraulic fracturing and shale gas, and continues to fund research and development and offer loan guarantees for nuclear power.

None of the nominees has coal industry experience, and the Administration looks poised to exert continued pressure on coal, primarily through additional EPA regulation. With Congress gridlocked, the president has chosen Gina McCarthy, an agency insider, to helm EPA. Having already defended a series of controversial air regulations during her tenure as the head of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Ms. McCarthy is battle tested and well-positioned to move forward on a series of new rules governing coal ash, cooling water intakes, GHG emissions from power plants, and oil and gas extraction and production. Whether Ms. McCarthy can execute on EPA’s robust regulatory agenda remains an open question, however, as potential morale problems due to sequestration are likely to have an adverse impact on EPA operations.

While Mr. Obama’s pick for Interior, Sally Jewell, CEO of REI, is an avid outdoorswoman and proponent of green causes, she also has a strong business background and worked for several years as an oil company engineer. Look for her to strike a pragmatic balance between Interior’s responsibilities for conservation and use of public lands. In that regard, the Administration sent a strong signal last January when it agreed to re-examine rules governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands after industry raised serious objections.

For Energy, Mr. Obama has decided to replace one physics professor and nuclear power advocate (Steven Chu) with another: MIT physics professor, Ernest Moniz. Given adverse public reaction after Fukushima, coupled with abundant and cheap natural gas, a nuclear renaissance is unlikely anytime soon, but Dr. Moniz is also a long-term supporter of hydraulic fracturing and increased domestic energy production. At MIT, Dr. Moniz co-authored a study advocating that the United States adopt supportive policies toward liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, an issue of increasing importance to industry and certain members of Congress. Look for the Department to continue to invest research dollars in alternative energy and in hydraulic fracturing safety.

The trick for these nominees to make meaningful progress, if confirmed, will be striking a balance between greenhouse gas reduction and energy independence. Any policy or regulatory initiative that promotes one at the expense of the other will likely yield a continued public and political backlash and continued failure to advance a coherent federal energy and environmental policy.

The President's nominees to lead EPA, Energy and Interior are in the position to shape the role of renewables in the U.S. energy landscape for the next decade and beyond. The solar industry is excited to work with each nominee upon confirmation. We encourage each nominee to boost collaboration among these three departments and agencies to develop common renewable energy visions and shared goals that support the Administration's policy priorities, minimize bureacratic conflict, and stre public-private dialogue and activities.

SEIA is excited about the President’s selection of Gina McCarthy for Administrator of EPA. Her nomination sends a clear message that the President intends to continue the important work started by Lisa Jackson to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep our air and water clean for future generations. Solar energy improves our nation’s environment while also growing our economy. The EPA has proven that these two ideals are not mutually exclusive, and the solar industry will continue to support the EPA in developing our clean energy future. Looking forward, the EPA must continue to recognize that all solar technologies, including PV, concentrated solar, and solar heating and cooling, will play an important role in achieving these goals.

The Department of Energy has been a critically important partner in the solar industry’s efforts to make solar technology more affordable and help break down barriers to solar deployment across the nation to establish America as a leader in clean energy. Dr. Moniz’s prior leadership at DOE and M.I.T. will be instrumental in promoting the innovation across the solar value chain to develop a strong clean energy economy. As Secretary of Energy, Dr. Moniz can hit the ground running -- already knowing the ways through the daunting structure of DOE. Working closely with these other nominees and the White House, Dr. Moniz can chart a course for the next phase of the ongoing widescale deployment of solar as a clean, affordable and reliable energy source across the nation.

Sally Jewell is a strong pick for the Department of the Interior post. She has big shoes to fill to spur solar development in the west after Secretary Salazar's successes. Ms. Jewell’s background as a businesswoman and CEO, as well as an outdoor enthusiast, means she brings to the position the same range of experiences that DOI is expected to balance: economic development along with conservation. Solar energy deployment is necessary for a diversified, domestic energy portfolio and we are committed to developing solar in an environmentally-sensitive manner. SEIA and its 1,000 member companies encourage Ms. Jewell to keep an open dialogue with stakeholders in tackling outstanding issues to solar deployment on federal lands.

As he did in his first term, President Obama is building a “dream team” cabinet for energy efficiency advocates. And, with his State of the Union plan to double America’s energy productivity – thereby advancing the Alliance’s Energy 2030 plan – he will need leaders who understand the “how and why” of driving energy efficiency into every corner of our economy and who are committed to do so from their various posts – whether at State, Interior, Agriculture or the others.

Of all of the cabinet posts, Energy is perhaps the most important in the overall quest to double U.S. energy productivity. And the President’s pick of Dr. Ernest Moniz ensures that there will be a laser-like focus by DOE on energy efficiency – America’s greatest energy resource. While there has been a lot of media attention around Dr. Moniz’s record on natural gas, nuclear and other conventional resources, he also has long been an outspoken and effective champion of energy efficiency throughout his storied career.

Dr. Moniz comes aboard with first-hand knowledge of DOE and its inner-working along with an acute political sense and his encyclopedic knowledge of energy and environmental issues. I wouldn’t presume to advise Dr. Moniz, however I will offer any and all help that we at the Alliance to Save Energy can give to help him as he executes the President’s vision to put the U.S. on a path to be the most energy efficient in the world.

Similarly, Gina McCarthy has invaluable experience at the state and national level and an expertise for using energy efficiency as a key strategy to advance environmental goals. She is a no-nonsense negotiator with an incredible track record of success in forging consensus between industry and government as demonstrated in her important role in the issuance of new federal fuel economy standards. While, again, not presuming to advise, the Alliance offers to help in any way we can to ensure that energy efficiency is used as an effective tool in EPA regulations, programs and initiatives that will be carried out by Ms. McCarthy as she executes the President’s environmental vision for our country.

Congress needs to approve both nominations post haste so we can get started on the path to doubling energy productivity and delivering the jobs, security and environmental benefits that come with achieving this goal.

Today in Forbes, my colleague Anthony Ward and I make the case that "EPA Nominee Gina McCarthy Has a History of Misleading Congress" on pivotal climate and fuel economy regulations.

Here's the overview portion of our column:

At a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in October 2011, McCarthy denied motor vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards are “related to” fuel economy standards. In so doing, she denied plain facts she must know to be true. She did so under oath.

Why does this matter? As we explain below, the falsehood that GHG standards and fuel economy standards are unrelated gave the EPA legal cover to grant a waiver authorizing California to implement its own de-facto fuel economy program. The waiver threatened to subject the auto industry to a “patchwork” of state-by-state fuel economy requirements.

The patchwork threat gave the White House leverage to offer regulatory protection in return for the auto industry’s support in legislative battles over the administration’s climate policies. Auto industry lobbying helped kill a key legislative effort to rein in the EPA and reclaim Congress’s authority to determine climate policy.

As we also explain, McCarthy and the Air Office gave false assurances future GHG permitting requirements would not operate as a ban on new coal-based power. This deception too undermined legislation to curb the EPA’s greenhouse power grab. The full article is available here.

In his second inaugural address, President Obama sounded a theme totally absent during his 2012 campaign: “We will respond to the threat of climate change.… Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

Never mind that the “overwhelming judgment of science” includes a 17-year period that continues today in which the Earth has not warmed one jot or tittle; that the hurricane that blew Obama back into office for another four years was a rare, yet not unprecedented event, amid one of the longest stretches ever with no category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the USA; or that federal land, water, and disease and fire control policies implemented by his fellow progressives have ensured that wildfires are harder to control, while farmers, ranchers and urbanites face increasingly reduced access to water.

The President’s outgoing Energy and Interior Secretaries and EPA Administrator were all highly controversial, divisive figures on the American political scene. The nominees to replace them – Sally Jewell for Interior, Ernest Moniz for Energy, and Gina McCarthy for EPA – are supposedly much more mainstream. That remains to be seen.

The Left has pilloried them for being far too soft on fossil fuels and other environmental bogeymen. The Greens groan and shudder at the very thought that their nominations might signal a forthcoming approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, even though the very Green John Kerry has replaced Hillary Clinton at the State Department, which holds the key to Keystone.

However, they have all been called “team players,” in an administration that has been decidedly anti-hydrocarbon and pro-renewable energy. The press says Moniz is both an architect and a supporter of the President’s “all of the above” energy policy – which to date has meant “all above ground” and “little or no below ground” energy resources. The other nominees have similarly murky track records, and extensive ties to climate alarmist and anti-drilling factions of the environmentalist movement.

So one wonders what the President really expects from his new nominees. To date he has been like a wily poker player, signaling in one direction, then laying down cards no one thought he would dare pull out of his sleeve. After declaring war on coal in his first administration, are we really to believe the new Interior Secretary nominee supports domestic coal mining? Or the Energy Secretary nominee? And surely not the EPA designee? Let’s start with the Jewell nomination, for which hearings are already under way.

Sally Jewell began her career as an engineer with Mobil Oil (now ExxonMobil), then switched to banking (advising on oil and gas asset management), before taking over as head of outdoors giant REI. She is touted as having business experience that is nearly unique in the Obama Cabinet.

However, Jewell is being prodded by the Left to go beyond President Obama’s “weak” position on public lands and follow Bill Clinton’s practice of closing millions of acres from human activity, especially oil and gas and mineral leasing, but even livestock grazing. Moreover, she is a lifelong outdoors enthusiast, whose “loyalties lie with those who view the public lands as a playground, not the source of commodities like minerals or meat,” notes Grist analyst Greg Hanscom.

While Jewell has continued to own fossil fuel (and power) industry stock, some have suggested that she is likely to support a carbon tax, further curbs on coal mining, more restrictions on Arctic oil and gas drilling, and similar initiatives. We think Congress should compel her to answer two big questions:

1) In light of the President’s “all of the above” energy policy and the clear challenge posed by Chinese ownership of most of the world’s supply of rare-earth minerals, how does energy and minerals development fit in with your strategy for managing our nation’s public lands?

2) Given that all federal lands lie within state boundaries – and that the United States is a federal republic, not a pure democracy – what role should states play in developing policies on federal lands within their borders, including decisions to appropriate private or public land within a state’s borders, and add them to an already vast national government managed park, monument, wilderness, refuge and “protected” lands system, so that the federal government can manage still more lands under newly restrictive policies?

Ernest Moniz has a long track record in and out of Washington for championing the idea that revenues from fossil fuels and nuclear energy can help fund the transition to a “clean fuels” economy. He has no prior objection to hydro-fracking or offshore oil drilling per se, and that has made his nomination the target of Leftist venom. For example, Margie Alt of Environment America whines that Moniz has a “history of supporting dirty and dangerous energy sources like gas and nuclear power.”

But the criticism is likely a smokescreen, because Moniz is expected to be another Obama team player. Indeed, many presume that Moniz is being brought onboard to be “good cop” on liquefied natural gas exports, despite testifying in 2011 that the U.S. will soon be a net natural gas importer, even as fracking has substantially increased domestic supplies. Likewise, his criticism of a flawed Cornell University study demonizing shale oil as worse than coal on greenhouse gas emissions makes him the perfect choice for future hand-wringing over some new study claiming that fracking could cause serious new environmental problems. We think the Energy nominee should answer two questions:

1) Given that the Earth has not warmed in the past 17 years, despite increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is it not time to reconsider the wisdom of increasing the costs of energy to American consumers via carbon taxes, cap-and-trade or the EPA’s plans to rigorously regulate CO2?

2) Given the increasing focus on energy efficiency and conservation, what are the best ways to reduce transmission line losses; curtail impacts on agricultural lands, wildlife habitats, and bird and bat species from wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels; and help families and businesses reduce energy use and expenses – without sacrificing employment, living standards or basic freedoms?

Gina McCarthy as new EPA administrator raises quite different concerns. As Marlo Lewis pointed out recently, McCarthy is guilty of lying to Congress during 2011 testimony, when she and other EPA officials denied under oath that motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards were in any way “related to” fuel economy standards.

Lewis concluded that this falsehood facilitated an extortion strategy that protected EPA’s efforts to legislate climate policy under the guise of implementing the Clean Air Act. It did this through secret negotiations that resulted in the auto industry to support rules that exceed Congressional intent, have the effect of unconstitutional Executive Branch legislation, and will result in many more serious injuries and deaths due to downsizing of vehicles to meet far tougher mileage standards.

These actions belie suggestions that McCarthy’s state regulatory experience and face-to-face involvement with industry makes her better able than her predecessor to work with the business community – except perhaps with large companies that seek more subsidies, special regulatory arrangements, or regulations that effectively penalize smaller competitors. It is equally unlikely that McCarthy will have “an open mind” regarding the economic consequences of environmental regulations.

As Competitive Enterprise Institute environmental analyst Myron Ebell has observed, McCarthy “has regularly tried to conceal the Obama administration’s economically destructive policies by misleading Congress, the public and industry. She has regularly stonewalled congressional requests for crucial information. And she is up to her ears in the Richard Windsor email scandal,” involving outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of fake email accounts to hide communications from public scrutiny. In sum, says Ebell, McCarthy has “a strained relationship with disclosure and transparency.”

Ms. McCarthy should therefore be required to respond to two important questions. Unless she can give honest, satisfactory, public answers to them, her nomination should be rejected outright.

1) Under what authority does EPA assert the right to twist existing law, to create new laws that exceed clear legislative language, the stated intent of Congress and historical precedent?

2) Under what authority does an EPA official have the right to lie under oath to Congress, thereby implying that Members of Congress are inferior to the Executive Branch and avoiding disciplinary action because of a partisan Justice Department that shields Executive Branch officials from prosecution for such unlawful behavior?

While we see the possibility that Jewell and Moniz will be loyal servants to the Obama Administration, and thus that their personal histories of support for various enterprises will be compromised and reshaped by political considerations determined in the Executive Office Building, we anticipate that both of these nominees will be quickly approved for service.

As for Gina McCarthy, despite her lengthy experience at the state and federal levels, and despite claims that she understands the need for more commonsense regulations, by her own admission she sees herself and the EPA as being above the law and having authority to create what amounts to binding legislation via administrative fiat.

Such attitudes are contrary to the Constitution and legal precedent and dangerous to our system of government. They should not be rewarded by a confirmation that ignores Ms. McCarthy’s past violations of law and grants her additional powers.

The Obama Administration’s first four years made the energy and environment priorities clear for all to see. Now entering the second term, maintaining the commitment to those priorities and finding ways to go even further will be the challenge for the new cabinet members. In the world of green building, that means maintaining the top line commitment to energy and water efficient, healthy, certified green buildings for the taxpayer savings and environmental benefits that they bring.

For Sally Jewell and the Department of the Interior, this means continuing the leadership that demonstrated a clear understanding of the value of green building by integrating LEED into REI’s interiors. For Ernest Moniz at the Department of Energy, it means continuing to identify and pursue green building as a proven path toward meeting energy challenges. And for Gina McCarthy, who literally wrote the book on how to utilize green building policy and the growing green building industry to help the state of Connecticut prosper, it means continuing as the strong leader she has been at every level of her career.

Assuming all three of his candidates are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama will have assembled his energy team for the second term: Sally Jewell at Interior, Ernest Moniz at Energy, and Gina McCarthy at EPA. And though the president hasn’t detailed any specifics for his energy agenda, his speeches over the past year suggest he has two broad objectives: (1) using “sustainable energy sources” (i.e. renewables) and air quality regulations as tools for fighting climate change and (2) continuing his commitment to development of conventional energy resources (“all of the above”) in an environmentally responsible manner.

At their confirmation hearings, we can expect all three nominees to promise they’ll take a balanced approach to energy policy. Indeed, in testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week Ms. Jewell stated that she supports the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy and that she would expand and diversify fossil fuel production on public lands while also working to double renewable electricity generation by 2020. Mr. Moniz, a physicist who has directed the MIT Energy Initiative, is a proponent of renewables but acknowledges fossil fuels will be around for a long time. He is also a supporter of nuclear power, which received short shrift during the first Obama term.

Without question, all three nominees are well qualified, though there will inevitably be some tough questioning during the confirmation process, especially in the case of Ms. McCarthy who headed the EPA’s air quality division during Obama’s first term when it promulgated new greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for cars as well as rules that would limit carbon emissions from new power plants. Later this year, the EPA is expected to issue limits on GHG and mercury emissions from existing power plants and industrial boilers.

U.S. energy and environmental policy is at a critical juncture, and once confirmed the energy team will have to deal with a range of pressing issues:

1. The environmental community wants the EPA to get into the business of regulating hydraulic fracturing. Is there evidence the states are doing a poor job? In view of extremely low natural gas prices, would applying additional compliance costs on the industry derail the shale boom?

2. Should the U.S. begin exporting oil and natural gas? Crude oil exports have been banned for 30 years, but a production glut of shale oil in fields from Texas to North Dakota is forcing a rethink. This ultra-light oil is flooding the Gulf Coast and trading at a huge discount. If sold abroad, it could generate $40 billion of new exports while having a minimal impact on domestic prices. Similarly, last year the government approved the first facility for liquefying and exporting natural gas. Another dozen permit applications are pending. Environmentalists, and even some manufacturing industries, are opposed to LNG exports. But the economic benefits, in terms of jobs and export receipts, are potentially huge.

3. The White House has postponed approval of the Keystone XL pipeline for nearly two years and now says it will be late summer before its review is completed. While Interior, Energy and EPA have no direct say in the pipeline’s future, the heads of these departments are clearly in a position to influence the president’s decision.

This is an exciting time for both the conventional and renewable energy sectors, which have added about 800,000 direct jobs over the past five years. By pursuing sensible and balanced policies and regulations, the new energy and environmental team can accelerate the timeline for North American energy independence while simultaneously helping to revive our sluggish economy.

UCS Board Chair Jim McCarthy and I sent a letter to President Obama on February 21 to applaud his commitment to address the threat of climate change in his second term and to propose a number of concrete ways he can do so.

Echoing the President’s own understanding of the robustness of the body of climate science, we said that “continued high emissions will lock in increasingly dangerous and irreversible changes in climate for future generations.”

We stressed that we now have a renewed window for action, emphasizing that “public understanding of the urgent need to adopt measures that reduce the risk of disruptive future climate has shifted significantly in the past few years, creating a more favorable environment within which to win support for far reaching climate policies.”

The full text of the letter highlights what our UCS team believes are the highest priority measures the President can take in the next year or two.

(In our letter, we primarily focused on climate change, clean energy, and science leadership – not because other areas that UCS works on, like reducing the threat of nuclear weapons or moving toward sustainable agricultural practices, aren’t important, but because we thought it important to prioritize our “asks.”)

One of those asks was that he build on his first term success of appointing highly capable scientists and engineers to key cabinet and other senior posts.

What some dubbed the “dream green team” was more accurately a dream science team, with Nobel laureate Stephen Chu, a physicist, as Secretary of Energy; Jane Lubchenco, with degrees in biology, zoology, and ecology, as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; John Holdren, with degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics, as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Lisa Jackson, a chemical engineer, as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Chu, Lubchenco, and Jackson have departed or shortly will depart the Administration, and the President appeared to be heeding our call when he named his new nominees for Secretary of Energy and the EPA, Ernie Moniz and Gina McCarthy, last Monday. (No successor to Lubchenco has been named yet.)

Of course being a scientist doesn’t guarantee a strong leader and manager of these large federal operations. The ideal combination is scientific expertise (or, at minimum, understanding how to access and rely upon it), leadership and management skills, policy knowledge and savvy, and commitment to public service.

Like Secretary Chu, Dr. Moniz is a seasoned and well regarded physicist – at one point chairing the Department of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at another serving as director of the Bates Linear Accelerator Center.

And also like his predecessor, he has immersed himself over his career in understanding energy technology and policy, leading, for example, a series of studies on the future of nuclear power, coal, nuclear fuel cycles, natural gas, and solar energy in a low-carbon world.

Dr. Moniz has considerable experience managing federal government agencies, having served as Under Secretary of the Department of Energy from 1997-2001 and as Associate Director for Science of the Office of Science and Technology Policy from 1995-97.

He is also knowledgeable about nuclear weapons issues – a high priority at DOE — and is equipped to make the case that the President can achieve his goal of increasing US security by further reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal. In his former DOE role, he led a comprehensive review of the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program.

The nominee has attracted some concern from some in the environmental community because of his support for nuclear energy and natural gas, even as his views appear to be consistent with the President’s call for an “all of the above” energy strategy. It will be important for him to work with the science and environmental communities and industry to address the climate change and safety issues associated with those energy sources.

Ms. McCarthy, with the benefit of a Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering from Tufts University and tours of duty as a top environmental protection official for Republican governors in Massachusetts and Connecticut and her current role as Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, has consistently, in my observation, grounded her decisions in the best available science.

In fact, as I told the Washington Post last week, “What she’s tough about is the science-based standard. She’s very pragmatic about how you get there.”

She was instrumental, in President Obama’s first term, in fashioning the strong greenhouse gas emission standards that will nearly double the fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet by 2025 – standards that were widely endorsed by auto manufacturing companies, in part because of their attention to practical considerations. Similarly, the air toxics rule that she stewarded had strong science-based reduction targets and also flexibility for industry to help them achieve them.

These two nominees are in the spirit of the President’s first-term science appointments, and are a compelling signal that he intends to advance national action on climate change over the next four years. Our letter of February 21 has useful guidance for his new team on ways to make significant progress.

The President’s recent nomination of Ms. Jewell, Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Moniz to head the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, respectively, appears to show that the President wants more of the same from the three agencies in the coming four years. The nominees have commendable public service records and will no doubt serve the President well, but we urge Senators to closely examine their stance on policies affecting energy prices during the coming nomination hearings.

For Mr. Moniz, we look forward to his thoughts on how the Department of Energy can help advance a sound energy economy that utilizes cost-effective technologies, improves energy efficiency, and diversifies our energy portfolio in an affordable, safe and efficient manner. In addition, the next leader at the Department of Energy must implement a sound path forward for nuclear waste management, and we hope that Mr. Moniz’s background as a nuclear physicist will bring renewed momentum to this debate.

Ms. McCarthy must understand that regulation of our nation’s utilities, refineries, and oil and natural gas producers all have a direct impact on energy prices. American air quality has improved significantly in the past 20 years – in fact, it is one of the best (and under-reported) success stories today. To ensure a sustainable path forward that meets our energy needs, maintains reasonable prices for consumers and continues environmental progress, EPA must strike a thoughtful balanced approach that does not damage America’s economy or energy security.

Ms. Jewell must also take a step back from the conservation-focused, recreation-only view of public lands and make assurances that she is committed to the doctrine of multiple use. While U.S. energy production has expanded on private land over the past several years, it has contracted on public lands. Ms. Jewell has an opportunity to help increase energy production and ensure environmental protection on millions of acres of western public land and Consumer Energy Alliance sincerely hope she takes it.

The DOI, EPA and the DOE have a great impact on the success or failure of America’s energy future. Energy is the engine driving the economy, and affordable, accessible energy is a key factor in our ongoing economic recovery. All the nominees need to work with industry, and consumers in order to find a way to say “Yes” to continued energy production in America rather than using regulation as a stick to combat further production. The nominees should be thoroughly examined with regard to their understanding of the unique role energy development is playing in our current economy.

It is abundantly clear in almost all recent Administrations, and especially this one, that policy is set in the White House. Cabinet officers are implementers. The President has made it clear in his remarks and his appointments that when it comes to energy and the environment, he is the “decider.” Unfortunately, he is guided by illusion, not hard-headed reality.

The President persists in promoting the illusions that constraining greenhouse gas emissions though regulatory mandates and subsidies for alternatives to fossil energy will achieve some sort of climate and energy miracle. He is wrong and the net effect of his policies will be to waste resources and discourage capital investment needed to get the economy moving upwards instead of sideways. U.S. CO2 emissions are not growing and won’t return to 2005 levels before 2035. So, what is the objective of more actions that will not actually achieve lower levels, let alone achieve them any faster?

Of the three nominees, Gina McCarthy is first among equals. For too long, national energy policy has been set indirectly by U.S. EPA. That is not going to change. If it was going to, the President would have appointed someone else as Administrator. During her four years as Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Ms. McCarthy joined Lisa Jackson in issuing some of the most far-reaching and extreme regulations ever to come out of EPA. New source review and power plant regulations, known as CAFE standards, have one thing in common - they suppress the use of fossil energy. But we are not facing an air quality crisis and EPA should stop pretending that we are so they can expand their regulatory jurisdiction.

The EPA has been undeterred by the backlash to its regulations from industry and the small business community, nor the efforts of OIRA to push back on a cost-benefit basis. What that clearly shows is that the EPA is an agency acting exactly the way the President needs it to for him to achieve his agenda. Regardless of the science, economic impact, or even public opinion, the EPA will not change direction unless it is the President’s wish.

The Secretary of Energy designate is an accomplished scientist who has also shown a tendency to support the prevailing climate change orthodoxy. Unfortunately, he is likely to pursue the same course as his predecessor, who while also a brilliant scientist, ignored energy realities. The role of the Secretary of Energy should be an advocate for abundant and affordable energy to fuel economic growth. But, it has been too long since the department has been led by a strong, capable advocate. Absent those qualities, EPA has filled the void. DOE’s budget has grown significantly over the past four years and the bureaucracy seeing the coach’s preferences will use that budget to please the sovereign.

Secretary Moniz would do well on day one to take an immersion course on the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook. He would quickly discover that for the next several decades, fossil energy will continue to dominate and the nirvana of green energy is similar to the horizon, receding upon approach. A well thought out basic research and development program that promotes innovation instead of an industrial policy would be a sign of leadership. If he does that while also looking for breakthroughs in nuclear technology and waste disposal, he will probably be judged a success.

The choice for Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, the chief executive of R.E.I., is interesting and potentially positive unless the White House constrains her ability to stop the current slow-walking of leasing offshore and on federal lands. The experience that has been gained from the production of oil and gas on private lands under state control should provide valuable information for more aggressive federal leasing. That would further enhance economic growth and job creation as well as increased trade opportunities.

All three nominees deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt. They have an opportunity to show leadership and press the President to abandon his illusions. That will be tough and take courage which unfortunately is in short supply in Washington.

Jewell, McCarthy and Moniz are all strong picks for key second term Cabinet posts, and my advice to each is the same: read Robert Reich's book, Locked in the Cabinet, for a good education on what it means to be a Cabinet Secretary. Reich joined the Clinton Administration as Secreary of Labor with the well-deserved reputation as a national expert on economics and employment issues. In addition, he was both an FOB (Friend of Bill) and an FOH (ditto for Hillary). Yet his book is the story of his marginalization and the ascendance of White House control for key issues, including welfare reform. Ultimately, Reich's experience left him disillusioned with both the Clintons and the post of Cabinet Secretary. This cautionary tale should be required reading for all new appointees.

Reich's experience doesn't have to be the template, however. There are essentially three ways a strong Secretary can add value to an Administration -- and each of these nominees is poised to do so in one respect or the other. First, a good Secretary who is also an effective manager can run his/her department so that implementing administration policy is done efficiently and to the utmost effect. We could look for Jewell to exemplify that, just as one Secretary in the previous Administration, Energy's Sam Bodman, did. Second, some Secretaries find their influence on the President to be strong, and can effectively shape policy because of that. Reich's book highlights Treasury Secretary Rubin as one of those; and Secretary Moniz may well fit that mold. Finally, a Secretary with strong congressional relations can both blunt budget cuts and smooth the way for regulatory and other policy successes. Gina McCarthy has already won praise from EPA skeptic Senator Jim Inhofe, but she will have her work cut out for her.

At the end of the day, one truism expressed in Reich's book still holds. Any Cabinet Secretary, no matter how well-qualified or skilled, is ultimately implementing policies set by the President. It's President Obama's second term, not theirs.