martella, r coc sid

===

rev dr at sidley before bush

NB sombitches list their role in creating regulation as dogwhistle that they can be paid to beat it

lobby write legis

=In the early months of 2014, a group of about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists began meeting regularly in the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, often, according to some of the participants, in a conference room overlooking the White House. Their task was to start devising a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations they feared were coming from President Obama.The group — headed in part by Roger R. Martella Jr., a top environmental official in the George W. Bush administration, and Peter Glaser, a prominent Washington lobbyist — was getting an early start.By the time Mr. Obama announced the regulations at the White House on Monday, the small group that had begun its work at the Chamber of Commerce had expanded into a vast network of lawyers and lobbyists ranging from state capitols to Capitol Hill, aided by Republican governors and congressional leaders. And their plan was to challenge Mr. Obama at every opportunity and take the fight against what, if enacted, would be one of his signature accomplishments to the Supreme Court.Within minutes of the announcement, West Virginia’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, stepped before a bank of cameras for a news conference at the Greenbrier resort in his home state. Flanked by Mike Duncan, the president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, one of the nation’s top coal lobbying groups, and Greg Zoeller, the attorney general of Indiana, Mr. Morrisey announced that a group of at least 15 Republican state attorneys general were preparing to jointly file a legal challenge to Mr. Obama’s proposal.“The final rule announced Monday blatantly disregards the rule of law and will severely harm West Virginia and the U.S. economy,” Mr. Morrisey said. “This rule represents the most far-reaching energy regulation in this nation’s history, drawn up by radical bureaucrats and based on an obscure, rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act.”“Our coalition, in short order, will comprise of many states, consumers, mine workers, coal operators, utilities and businesses who are united in opposition to this radical and illegal policy,” he added.While Mr. Obama had not even put forth a draft proposal of his plans when the group started its work, the president had made plain in several speeches that he intended to act forcefully on climate change — and that he would flex the muscle of his executive authority to do so. “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” he said in his 2013 State of the Union address. The lawyers and lobbyists wanted to be ready to fire back hard and fast when he did.
RELATED COVERAGEOpinion EditorialPresident Obama’s Tough, Achievable Climate Plan AUG. 3, 2015
Opinion Joe NoceraObama’s Flexible Fix to Climate Change AUG. 4, 2015Opinion Op-Ed ContributorsA Climate Plan Businesses Can Like AUG. 3, 2015
Opinion Op-Ed ContributorObama Takes a Crucial Step on Climate Change AUG. 
In devising its strategy, the group worked closely with the office of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader whose coal-producing home state also stands to suffer under the regulation. While Mr. McConnell opposes the climate change regulations, his advisers knew that he had little chance of enacting legislation to block them in Congress. Instead, Mr. McConnell has taken the unusual step of reaching out directly to governors and attorneys general, urging them to refuse to submit compliance plans for the regulations, and encouraging a state-by-state rejection of the rules.Mr. Morrisey, whose coal-producing home state is also struggling with the nation’s highest unemployment rate, was chosen as the public face of the suit. But key strategists joining the original planning were Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a former attorney general there, and Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma. Both already had experience suing the Obama administration over major Clean Air Act regulations.An important ally in the effort was the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a conservative advocacy group that pushes policy through state legislatures. Typically, the council’s committees of corporate members will craft a model bill designed to push through policies it supports, such as rolling back environmental regulations.At a July meeting in San Diego, ALEC’s energy committee — which includes Mr. Duncan, the coal lobbyist who also worked closely with Mr. McConnell on his tactics — enacted a model bill designed to directly support state attorneys general who legally challenge the climate change plan. According to a person present at that July meeting, the bill would allow states to create funds, which could be funded by corporate donations, to support legal challenges to the climate change rules.While it is not unusual for major corporations to sue the federal government over environmental regulations, people involved in the effort to craft a legal strategy against the climate change rules said the time, labor and coordination of the effort were unusual. That effort reflects the sweeping scope of climate change regulations, which, unless struck down in the Supreme Court, could transform huge sectors of the economy, potentially crippling the coal industry and other industrial sectors whose economic well-being relies on coal.
The Obama administration contends that despite the massive scale of the challenges trained against it, the climate change plan is legally sound. “The final rule is built on a rock-solid legal foundation,” said Thomas Reynolds, a spokesman for the agency.
“E.P.A. is using its clear authority under the Clean Air Act to set emission standards for air pollutants,” he said. “The rule is wholly consistent with the law, and we are confident it will withstand any and all legal challenges.”
But Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who has worked closely with the group, says that the attorneys general will not back down. “This rule was more aggressive than any of us could have imagined,” he said. “There is no lack of state attorneys general who would like to put a bullet in this thing.” The rules, a final, stricter version of a plan that the Environmental Protection Agency announced in 2012 and 2014, assigns each state a target for reducing its carbon pollution from power plants. States will be allowed to create their own plans to meet the requirements and will have to submit initial versions of their plans by 2016 and final versions by 2018.
The most aggressive of the regulations requires that by 2030, the nation’s existing power plants must cut emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels, which is an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation.
The president on Monday called the new rules a public health imperative and “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” He also sought to wrap the policy in the legitimacy of transcendental values, noting that Pope Francis issued an encyclical in June, calling action on the issue a “moral obligation.”
Even as Mr. Obama acknowledged the steep resistance from coal-producing states and industry critics, he said it was up to the United States to adopt tough standards so that other countries like China would feel compelled to take similar steps.
But Mr. McConnell made it clear he would do everything in his power to combat the rules, which he said the president had crafted because he was “tired of having to work with the Congress the people elected.”
“That’s why the administration is now trying to impose these deeply regressive regulations — regulations that may be illegal, that won’t meaningfully impact the global environment, and that are likely to harm middle- and lower-class Americans most — by executive fiat,” Mr. McConnell said. “It represents a triumph of blind ideology over sound policy and honest compassion,” he added.]lil sis... Sidley Austin:In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box;">American Electric Power v. Connecticut </a>that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law, because the Clean Air Act delegates the management of carbon dioxide emissions to the EPA. Peter Keisler, a partner at Sidley Austin, <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_10_174" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box;">argued on behalf of the petitioners</a>:•   American Electric Power•   Cinergy Company•   Southern Company•   Xcel Energy Earlier this year, Keisler, along with Roger Martella Jr. also argued on behalf of the Pacific Legal Foundation in a case led by Murray Energy seeking to preemptively throw out the Clean Power Plan. The original <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/61AA9C6759829C8B85257E5F005110D8/%24file/14-1112.pdf" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">plaintiffs before the court</a> were <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/murray-energy" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Murray Energy</a> and West Virginia. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/peabody-energy" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Peabody Energy,</a> the <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/04/influence-analytics-what-is-the-utility-air-regulatory-group-which-opposes-obamas-clean-power-plan/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Utility Air Regulatory Group</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Legal_Foundation" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Pacific Legal Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/national-mining-association" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">National Mining Association</a>, the <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/american-coalition-clean-coal-electricity-accce" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a>, and 13 additional states joined the plaintiffs’ cause.  In June, the federal appeals court in Washington DC dismissed that lawsuit as premature. This LittleSis network map will be updated as polluters fund more attorneys in the fight against the Clean Power Plan. Others with new information are encouraged to build off of this map and connect more companies to the law firms. Not only is it important for people to see these connections, but many will remember that in 2009, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/09/02/174417/duke-quits-accce/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent;">Duke Energy was pressured to leave ACCCE</a> after it was caught playing both sides of the Waxman-Markey debate: it publically supported the bill but also was a paying member of ACCCE, which was working to kill the legislation. Duke Energy also quit the National Association of Manufacturers for similar reasons. If utility companies voice support for the Clean Power Plan, it’s crucial to put pressure on them to leave front groups or trade associations working to fight the EPA.,,,=https://www.desmog.com/2010/01/11/murkowski-amendment-protect-polluters-was-written-dirty-polluter-lobbyists/the Washington Post <a href="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html" target="blank" rel="noopener external noreferrer" data-wpel-link="external" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">is reporting</a> that Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s amendment to gut EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act was written by two Washington lobbyists known for representing some of the worst polluters in the nation.Surprise, surprise!Juliet Eilperin <a href="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html" target="blank" rel="noopener external noreferrer" data-wpel-link="external" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">writes on the Post Carbon blog</a>:  “The Washington Post has confirmed that two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress.”The Post notes that Sen. Murkowski is now likely to postpone offering the amendment next week when Congress returns to tackle the subject of climate change anew.  “This Mukowski rider should be called the Protect Dirty Polluters amendment, especially since we now know that it was written by polluter lobbyists,” Kert Davies, Director of the new <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/" target="blank" rel="noopener external noreferrer" data-wpel-link="external" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">PolluterWatch</a> project at Greenpeace, told me today.“If this amendment passed, it would be a get out of jail free card for the worst polluters from Big Oil and Big Coal,” Davies said. And who better to deliver this gift to the carbon barons?  A darling of the Carbon Club, Sen. Murkowski has received <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&type=I&cid=N00026050&newMem=N&recs=20" target="blank" rel="noopener external noreferrer" data-wpel-link="external" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: none;">$470,000 in campaign contributions</a> from dirty energy and mining interests since 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.The Post Carbon piece notes that the lobbyists who helped write the Mukowski amendment, both former Bush EPA employees, have again returned to doing what they do best, representing polluters in an effort to derail climate legislation: “Holmstead represents industry interests including Southern Company, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council on climate matters, according to congressional lobbying registration forms, while Martella represents the National Alliance of Forest Owners and the Alliance of Food Associations on the same subject.”The revelations about the origins of Murkowski’s polluter-friendly amendment don’t exactly kick off 2010 on a bright note.  It looks as if Congress is set to continue abandoning the public interest in favor of doing the bidding of polluters once again in the new year. Same old, same old, unfortunately.=

Louisiana Attorney General’s office coordinates behind the scenes with Koch lobbyists Hunton & Williams o In January 2015, representatives of the Koch connected lobbying firm Hunton & Williams as well as George Mason Law & Economics Center independently emailed Louisiana Assistant Attorney General Trey Phillips to invite him to a briefing entitled “Clean Air Act: Clean Power or Power Play?” featuring presentations from Peter S. Glaser, Robert L. Glicksman, Jason S. Johnston, Roger R. Martella, and Richard O. Faulk about the Clean Power Plan. Glaser, Johnston, Martella, and Faulk do not believe the Clean Power Plan is on firm legal standing. George Mason University has also accepted millions of dollars in funding from Koch brothers foundations and Charles Koch is a member of the George Mason Mercatus Center’s Board of Directors.

===

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin</a>

Roger R. Martella is a lobbyist with the lobbying firm, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin" title="Sidley Austin">Sidley Austin</a> and a partner in the firm's Environmental Practice Group.

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#Background">1 Background</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#Amending_a_Bill">2 Amending a Bill</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#Articles_and_resources">3 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#Related_SourceWatch_articles">3.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#References">3.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#External_resources">3.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#External_articles">3.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</div>

<h2>Background</h2>

A biographical note states that Martella "recently rejoined Sidley Austin LLP after serving as the General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, concluding 10 years of litigating and handling complex environmental and natural resource matters at the Department of Justice and EPA. Mr. Martella’s practice focuses on three primary areas. First, Mr. Martella advises companies on developing strategic approaches to achieve their goals in light of rapidly developing demands to address climate change, promote sustainability, and utilize clean energy. Second, Mr. Martella handles a broad range of environmental and natural resource litigation and mediation. Third, Mr. Martella advises multinational companies on compliance with environmental laws in the United States, China, the European Union, and other nations."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R._Martella#cite_note-1">[1]</a>

<h2>Amending a Bill</h2>

In January 2010 Washington Post journalist, Juliet Eilperin, reported that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jeffrey_R.Holmstead" title="Jeffrey R. Holmstead">Jeffrey R. Holmstead</a>‎‎ and Martella Jr., "helped craft" the original version of an amendment proposed by Republican Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lisa_Murkowski" title="Lisa Murkowski">Lisa Murkowski</a> which would "bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act". Holmstead and a Murkowski aide confirmed that Martella, a partner at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin" title="Sidley Austin">Sidley Austin</a>, helped draft the amendment. Martella is the registered lobbyist for the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Alliance_of_Forest_Owners&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Alliance of Forest Owners (page does not exist)">National Alliance of Forest Owners</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_of_Food_Associations&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Alliance of Food Associations (page does not exist)">Alliance of Food Associations</a> on climate change.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_R.Martella#cite_note-2">[2]</a>

<h2>Articles and resources</h2>

<h3>Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<h3>References</h3>

</li>

</ol>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sidley.com/martella_roger/">"Our people: Roger R. Martella, Jr."</a>, Sidley Austin website, accessed January 2010.</li>

</li>

<li style=" list-style: none;">Juliet Eilperin, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html">"Murkowski and her lobbyist allies"</a>, Post Carbon (Washington Post blog), January 11, 2010.</li>

</ol>

===

Sidley Austin LLP (formerly Sidley Austin Brown & Wood) is one of the world's largest <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Law_firms" title="Law firms">law firms</a> with over 1,700 lawyers in 16 offices around the world. The firm was founded in 1866 in Chicago, U.S. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-About_page-1">[1]</a>

Sidley Austin is also a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lobbying_firm" title="Lobbying firm" class="mw-redirect">lobbying firm</a> that has lobbied in 2007 for over 30 corporations and associations such as <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/General_Motors" title="General Motors" class="mw-redirect">General Motors</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Johnson_%26_Johnson" title="Johnson & Johnson">Johnson & Johnson</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto" title="Monsanto">Monsanto</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-Open_Secrets-2">[2]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#Sidley_Austin_Settled_Age_Bias_Suit">2 Sidley Austin Settled Age Bias Suit</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#Political_contributions">3 Political contributions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#Clients">4 Clients</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#Lobbying">5 Lobbying</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#Contact_details">6 Contact details</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#Related_SourceWatch_articles">7 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#References">8 References</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

According to its website, Sidley works in "corporate and securities, mergers and acquisitions, securitization, intellectual property, funds and other pooled investments, bankruptcy and corporate reorganization, bank and commercial lending, public finance, real estate, tax and employee benefits, as well as trusts and estates." Additional areas are "general and commercial litigation, securities and financial litigation, regulatory enforcement, antitrust, white collar criminal defense, food and drug, patent and other intellectual property litigation, product liability and mass tort litigation, international commercial arbitration and dispute resolution, and international trade law." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-About_page-1">[1]</a>

<h2>Sidley Austin Settled Age Bias Suit</h2>

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of 32 former employees, pursued an age discrimination suit against Sidley Austin. Most of the workers were in their 50s and 60s and had been demoted in status to counsel. In 2007, without a "determination of merits", the law firm agreed to pay a settlement of US$27.5 million. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-3">[3]</a>

<h2>Political contributions</h2>

Sidley Austin gave $115,221 to federal candidates in the 2006 election through its <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Political_action_committee" title="Political action committee">political action committee</a> - 30% to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Democrats" title="Democrats" class="mw-redirect">Democrats</a> and 70% to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Republican_Party_%28USA%29" title="Republican Party (USA)">Republicans</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-4">[4]</a>

<h2>Clients</h2>

Clients for Sidley's legal services include Fortune 500 corporations, as well as governments, banks, insurance and financial companies, professional firms, foundations, associations, and individuals. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-About_page-1">[1]</a>

<h2>Lobbying</h2>

A few of the clients on whose behalf Sidley Austin has engaged in lobbying in 2007 include: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-Open_Secrets-2">[2]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ARAMARK" title="ARAMARK">ARAMARK</a> Corp</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bayer" title="Bayer">Bayer</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Caterpillar" title="Caterpillar">Caterpillar</a> Inc</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Celgene" title="Celgene">Celgene</a> Corp</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Honeywell" title="Honeywell">Honeywell</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/MasterCard" title="MasterCard">MasterCard</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/United_Parcel_Service" title="United Parcel Service">United Parcel Service</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce" title="U.S. Chamber of Commerce">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></li>

</ul>

American Electric Power also spent $580,000 on Sidley Austin LLP in 2008 and a further $10,000 to date in 2009.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sidley_Austin#cite_note-American_Electric_Power-5">[5]</a> The registered lobbyist was <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Andrew_Shoyer" title="Andrew Shoyer">Andrew Shoyer</a>.

==

On February 10th, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (“ACS”) hosted a panel discussion on legal approaches and activities associated with “combatting” climate change through legal action. Topics covered were RICO prosecutions, climate torts and the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan. The session was organized and moderated by Lisa Heinzerling, the attorney who was brought into EPA to manage the legal analysis of how to extend the agency’s powers beyond the limits of the Clean Air Act in order to implement the environmental activists’ climate agenda, and who had previously won the Massachusetts v. EPA case enabling EPA to regulate carbon dioxide. The discussion panel consisted of Richard E. Ayres, Founding Partner, Ayres Law Group, LLP; Co-Founder, Natural Resources Defense Council; Sharon Eubanks, Partner, Bordas & Bordas, PLLC; lead counsel for the United States in United States v. Phillip Morris, et al. (the RICO tobacco case); Matthew F. Pawa, President, Pawa Law Group, P.C., who has failed repeatedly in his civil climate change tort claims against hydrocarbon companies; and the obligatory “other side of the argument” panelist, Roger R. Martella, Jr., Partner, Sidley Austin, LLP; former General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency and representing parties opposing EPA’s Clean Power Plan. In addition, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) offered remarks.

http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/roger-martella-jr

rOGER MARTELLA co-leads the <a href="http://www.sidley.com/en/services/environmental" target="_blank">Environmental</a> practice group at Sidley Austin LLP. He rejoined Sidley Austin LLP after serving as the General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, concluding 10 years of litigating and handling complex environmental and natural resource matters at the Department of Justice and EPA. In 2015, Roger was recognized by Who’s Who Legal as the environmental lawyer of the year globally.

Roger’s practice focuses on three primary areas. First, Roger advises companies on developing strategic approaches to achieve their goals in light of rapidly developing demands to address <a href="http://www.sidley.com/en/services/climatechange" target="blank">climate change</a>, promote sustainability and utilize clean energy. Second, Roger handles a broad range of environmental and natural resource litigation and mediation. Third, Roger advises multinational companies on <a href="http://www.sidley.com/en/services/compliancemanagement" target="blank">compliance</a> with environmental laws in the United States, China, the European Union and other nations.

Roger counsels approximately 50 of the world’s leading conventional and renewable energy, industrial, transportation, agricultural, forestry, and technology companies on bet-the-company environmental issues, regulatory matters, and litigation including transitioning to an era of legal controls addressing greenhouse gas emissions, increasingly stringent pollutant controls, alternative and clean energy, <a href="http://www.sidley.com/en/services/shale-development-and-hydraulic-fracturing" target="_blank">hydraulic fracturing</a>, and sustainability both in the United States and abroad.

Roger employs a strategic, forward-looking approach to solving emerging law and policy issues across the world that have the potential to create both opportunities and risks for domestic and multinational energy and manufacturing companies and industries. Roger’s approach is to build a collaborative and coalition-building framework that seeks the strongest possible results through up front coordination with government, industry, and NGO stakeholders, leveraging strong honest broker relations with government officials and understanding of government approach to realize resolutions that have led to extraordinary favorable resolutions offering significant regulatory relief to industries and pennies-on-the-dollar enforcement settlements for companies.

Roger was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate as EPA General Counsel. In that role, Roger served as EPA’s chief legal advisor supervising an office of 350 lawyers and staff in Washington and 10 regional offices. In particular, Roger led the team responsible for developing for the first time under the Clean Air Act the federal government’s climate change legal framework and options in response to the landmark Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held greenhouse gases to be air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

<div class="authorContent">Education

<ul>

<li>Vanderbilt University Law School

(J.D., 1995)</li>

<li>Cornell University

(B.S., 1992)</li>

</ul>

</div>

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. The people listed as Experts have spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. All expressions of opinion by an expert are those of the expert.

</div>

<div class="authorContent">Publications and Multimedia

<div class="authorItem"><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/environmental-law-and-regulation-event-audiovideo">Environmental Law and Regulation - Event Audio/Video</a>

First Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

June 14, 2013</div>

<div class="authorItem"><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/epa-an-agency-gone-wild-or-just-doing-its-job-event-audiovideo">EPA: An Agency Gone Wild or Just Doing Its Job? - Event Audio/Video</a>

2010 National Lawyers Convention

November 20, 2010</div>

<div class="authorItem"><a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/regulation-by-litigation-boon-or-bane-event-audio">Regulation by Litigation: Boon or Bane? - Event Audio</a>

Center for Business Law & Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Administrative Law Practice Group, and Litigation Practice Group

March 17, 2009</div>

</div>

==

Roger R. Martella, Jr.

Partner

Sidley Austin LLP

1501 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202.736.8097

rmartella@sidley.com

Roger Martella is a partner in the Environmental Practice Group at Sidley Austin LLP. He recently rejoined

Sidley Austin LLP after serving as the General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection

Agency, concluding 10 years of litigating and handling complex environmental and natural resource matters

at the Department of Justice and EPA. Mr. Martella's practice focuses on three primary areas: advising

companies on strategic approaches to address climate change, promote sustainability, and utilize clean

energy; environmental and natural resource litigation and mediation; advising multinational companies on

compliance with environmental laws in the United States, China, the European Union, and other nations.

As General Counsel of the EPA, Mr. Martella served as EPA's chief legal advisor supervising an office of

350 attorneys and staff in Washington and 10 regional offices. At EPA, Mr. Martella served as Agency

counsel on six Supreme Court decisions, including Massachusetts v. EPA (climate change); Defenders of

Wildlife v. EPA (finding no Endangered Species Act duty to consult when approving state water program);

EPA v. Rapanos and Maine v. S.D. Warren (landmark decisions addressing federal jurisdiction over waters

of the United States); Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy (addressing Clean Air Act enforcement

against powerplants); and U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (the Court's most recent decision regarding

CERCLA).

Mr. Martella graduated from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was Editor in Chief of the Vanderbilt Law

Review, and Cornell University, where he studied environmental science. Following law school, he clerked

for the Hon. David M. Ebel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

===

LI

<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/general-counsel%2Fprincipal-deputy-general-counsel?trk=pprofile_title">General Counsel/Principal Deputy General Counsel</a><ul class="positions"><li class="position" data-section="pastPositionsDetails"><header>

<h5 class="item-subtitle">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</h5>

</header>

<div class="meta"><time>2005</time> – <time>2008</time> (3 years)</div>

</li>

<h4 class="item-title"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/principal-counsel-complex-litigation?trk=pprofile_title">Principal Counsel Complex Litigation</a></h4>

<h5 class="item-subtitle"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/u-s--department-of-justice?trk=ppro_cprof">U.S. Department of Justice</a></h5>

</header>

<div class="meta"><time>2003</time> – <time>2005</time> (2 years)</div>

</li>

</ul>

===

scrape

Sam Boxerman

    Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

    Kenneth Irvin

    Partner, Co-Chair Energy Practice Team at Sidley Austin LLP

    Monica Welt

    Director of Compliance at Big Lots Stores, Inc.

    Coleen Klasmeier

    Partner and Global Coordinator, Food, Drug and Medical Device Regulatory Practice Area Team at Sidley Austin LLP

    Matthew Lerner

    Partner at Sidley Austin LLP

    Catherine Karen

    Counsel at Sidley Austin LLP

    Jing Moreno

    Executive Assistant at Sidley Austin LLP

    Lorrie Marcil

    Partner at Sidley Austin

    David Ludlow

    Partner at Sidley Austin LLP

    Colleen Lauerman

    Partner at Sidley Austin

==

Law360, New York (February 20, 2013

<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="80"><tbody><tr><td><img src="/4a8d2c81-df29-58d3-86c3-a3d209861a5e.jpg"/>" style="margin: 5px 8px 0 8px; border: 1px solid #999;" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td style="text-align: center; line-height: 14px; padding-top: 4px;">Roger Martella</td></tr></tbody></table>

<a href="http://www.sidley.com/martella_roger/">Roger R. Martella Jr.</a> is a partner in the environmental practice group at <a href="http://www.law360.com/firms/sidley-austin">Sidley Austin LLP</a>.He rejoined Sidley Austin after serving as the general counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, concluding 10 years of litigating and handling complex environmental and natural resource matters at the <a href="http://www.law360.com/agencies/u-s-department-of-justice">U.S. Department of Justice</a> and EPA.

Martella advises companies on developing strategic approaches to achieve their goals in light of rapidly developing demands to address climate change, promote sustainability and utilize clean energy, and advises multinational companies on compliance with environmental laws in the United States, China, the European Union and other nations.

Q: What is the most challenging case you have worked on and what made it challenging?

A: There’s probably few things more challenging for an attorney than receiving an email on a Monday morning that the Supreme Court just decided the case of a generation that will forever redefine your field of law and, FYI, the other side won. That is what happened on April 2, 2007, when the Supreme Court decided Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark case that greatly expanded the Environmental Protection Agency’s organic regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gases for the first time. I was the EPA general counsel at the time, and up until that email had felt confident — like the majority of observers — that the court was almost certain to affirm the EPA’s view at the time that it was up to Congress, not the EPA, to address global greenhouse gases.

Such an instantaneous whirlwind change put me and my legal team in immediate charge of navigating the reaction to the decision for the agency and the president, formulating options that held true to the letter of the law while reflecting the policy and negotiating positions of the administration on climate change, and creating, for the first time, an entirely new regulatory regime and mission for an agency from the ground up. The process was fast, challenging, controversial and high profile: a combination of circumstances that presents itself on only a handful of occasions in a career. Nearly six years later, Massachusetts is still seen as one of the most significant decisions in the history of environmental law, and its progeny — the challenges to the actual regulations that the Obama EPA ultimately enacted in its wake — may return to the court later this year.

Q: What aspects of your practice area are in need of reform and why?

A: The biggest challenge for any party impacted by environmental law is operating in a statutory and regulatory universe that has not adapted with the times. Most environmental laws were enacted in the early 1970s and, with a few exceptions in the 1980s, have been largely untouched since then. Environmental regulations can take years if not a decade or more to be revised or enacted. It is natural that over the course of 40 years, the efficacy of the laws as originally written, the environmental challenges of the nation, and the economic composition of the industrial United States are going to change dramatically. The laws, however, have not kept up, frequently creating the proverbial square peg in a round hole dilemma for all parties impacted.

Over the course of 40 years, various regulators, environmental groups, private parties and even the courts have worked to adapt the law on the books to the changing circumstances of the day, but with results that frequently add more burdens than benefits. I doubt anyone would disagree that legislative and regulatory reform would be in the best interest of the environment and the economy, but to do so will require a bipartisan effort pulling together stakeholders with all perspectives working toward a common goal. Such reform efforts have worked in other complex sectors, and are desperately needed in environmental law in order to advance environmental protection and address the unforeseen consequences of some stale laws on economic growth.

Q: What is an important issue or case relevant to your practice area and why?

A: The most significant issue in environmental law today is the increasingly blurring intersection of the environment and energy. Until recently, the line between energy and environmental law has been relatively well defined. In the last five years, however, as environmental regulators have sought to reduce greenhouse gases as the key policy priority and respond to emerging energy trends such as the Canadian oil sands and hydraulic fracturing, environmental regulations in turn are being adapted and expanded to address not just environmental pollution coming out of a smoke stack but, more significantly, to influence the type and use of energy across the country and in various states.

In other words, in recent years, environmental regulators such as the federal EPA and the California Air Resources Board are increasingly being seen as much as energy regulators as they are protectors of the environment, as evidenced by EPA’s recent proposal to phase out new coal-fired power plants and CARB’s low carbon fuel standard that dictates what types of feedstock can be used in gasoline.

Beyond the United States, another significant issue is that multinational companies are operating complex global supply chains across the world where the application and enforcement of environmental laws can differ greatly. Thus, an increasing emphasis of my practice is helping these companies understand how they can be in strict compliance with laws around the world that may be vague, ambiguous, and even inconsistent.

Q: Outside your own firm, name an attorney in your field who has impressed you and explain why.

A: If the environmental bar as a whole were surveyed on who is the one individual who has been at the forefront of environmental law for the last generation, has influenced more issues and cases, and who has helped more young lawyers advance to leading experts of their field, I am fairly certain the answer would be John Cruden by a long shot.

John is currently president of the <a href="http://www.law360.com/companies/environmental-law-institute">Environmental Law Institute</a> but spent most of his recent career at the Justice Department, overseeing the most important litigation docket of environmental issues through several administrations. More than just the truest of experts in all things having to do with environmental law, John sets the bar for all other attorneys, environmental and otherwise, in how to mentor and motivate younger lawyers to become skilled practitioners and leaders of their fields. I know that I join scores of others in crediting John with many of the opportunities I have had in my career in government service, private practice and public interest.

Q: What is a mistake you made early in your career and what did you learn from it?

A: As a young and perhaps by some accounts naive lawyer at the Justice Department, I was for a time wedded to a notion that litigators litigate, and alternative dispute resolution was an academic concept that was utilized by parties only with weak litigating positions. I fortunately was dissuaded of this misperception relatively early in my career and came to appreciate quickly how using mediation not only reduces costs, time and uncertainty, but more importantly is much more likely to lead to scenarios that are not lose-lose for all parties (given, as we all know, even parties who win a case at the end of the day do not always obtain everything that they want at the time when they most need it).

Beyond cases headed to the court room steps, I have embraced the concept of using alternative means to resolve even the most tense and complex disputes in every aspect of my practice in the government and at Sidley; it is now inherent in my practitioner DNA. Frequently, the great results, fixes and successes we realize in negotiations over proposed rulemakings, in letters and through formal settlement agreements fail to obtain the glean and attention of a win on the courthouse steps, but in almost every instance such a quieter victory brings better results sooner to my clients while preserving if not strengthening long-term relationships in the future.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

<h3>Related Articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/160732/rising-star-sidley-austin-s-roger-martella?article_related_content=1" title="Rising Star: Sidley Austin's Roger Martella">Rising Star: Sidley Austin's Roger Martella</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/68894/former-epa-general-counsel-returns-to-sidley?article_related_content=1" title="Former EPA General Counsel Returns To Sidley">Former EPA General Counsel Returns To Sidley</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/418544/q-a-with-snr-denton-s-james-rubin?article_related_content=1" title="Q&A With SNR Denton's James Rubin">Q&A With SNR Denton's James Rubin</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/553216/high-court-s-recent-term-isn-t-the-green-light-epa-thinks?article_related_content=1" title="High Court's Recent Term Isn't The Green Light EPA Thinks">High Court's Recent Term Isn't The Green Light EPA Thinks</a></li>

</ul>

==