Morrisey, P GOV
==
PRIMARY MOFO DEREG 4 24
see RAGA
SEE CPP
see elbert lin solic genl
opioid perdue $
===
assholery trifecta: DACA, sedition, intervenor
STEVE MARSHALL Attorney General of AlabamaEdmund G. LaCour Jr. (AL Bar No. 9182-U81L) Solicitor General Thomas A. Wilson (AL Bar No. 1494-D25C) Deputy Solicitor General STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 242-7300 Fax: (334) 353-8400 Edmund.LaCour@AlabamaAG.gov Thomas.Wilson@AlabamaAG.gov Counsel for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor State of Alabama [additional counsel listed on signature page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA
PROPOSED DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS: STATES OF ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA’S REPLY
[**RAGA leaders were also involved in Texas AG Ken Paxton's [lawsuit filed last month in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the presidential election results in the battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, claiming changes made to accommodate voters in the COVID-19 pandemic were unlawful. Among those signing on to the suit were RAGA's Hunter [okla, quit 2021] , Landry, Marshall [alabama], Moody, Reyes, Schmitt and Wilson, as well as the Republican AGs ofArkansas,Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia.]]*
{{In July 2017, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led a group of Republican Attorneys General from nine other states, includingMarshall, plus Idaho Governor Butch Otter, in threatening the Donald J. Trump administration that they would litigate if the president did not terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy that had been put into place by president Barack Obama. Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery, III subsequently reversed his position and withdrew his participation from the proposed suit on August 31st. Slatery went further to urge passage of the DREAM Act.[5][6] The other Attorneys General who joined in making the threats against Trump includedLawrence Wasden of Idaho, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Doug Peterson of Nebraska, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, and Patrick Morriseyof West Virginia.}}
===
---
Fox Business hosts question West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey about necessity of government handouts for coal
Electric bills in the state, which gets 86% of energy from coal, are rising faster than the national average
Special ProgramsClimate & Energy
Written by Ilana Berger
Published 10/03/25 MMA
Leaders in West Virginia are cheering on Trump’s recently announced effort to aggressively invest in coal, but residents have been feeling the consequences of being forced to rely on energy that is no longer economically viable.
In the September 30 edition of Fox Business’ The Bottom Line, host Dagen McDowell and guest host Guy Benson asked West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey if it was really necessary for the administration to pour $625 million into coal-fired plants, and whether this would ultimately benefit his state.
Benson said, “Some conservatives would say, great, unleash that industry, take off the shackles, but why give taxpayer money?”
McDowell later followed up by asking, “Do you need this money from the federal government? What does the coal industry need it for?”
Morrisey’s familiar answers to these questions parroted those of some right-wing media figures and other Trump officials who have tried to use AI to bolster the fossil fuel industry.
“We’re looking to make sure that we can increase coal production. And so there’s going to be an important use to get the mines to be able to last for another 20- 25 years, the power plants to last another 20-25 years. You have to have that base load power, otherwise you’re not going to compete with China,” he said. “China is producing one coal fire power plant after another. And they’re doing it in order to gain supremacy for AI and for data and technology. America must view this as a national security fight.”
Video
Citation
From the September 30, 2025, edition of Fox Business' The Bottom Line
Data center construction to power AI will indeed require massive amounts of energy. OpenAI recently announced a plan to build a series of new data centers with Nvidia, which would use “close to the total electricity demand of Switzerland and Portugal combined,” according to Fortune.
The demand is contributing to rising electric costs across the nation, which right-wing media inaccurately have blamed on Democrat-led decarbonization efforts. Ignoring tech companies’ lobbying efforts to keep renewable energy tax credits specifically for powering data centers, the Trump administration canceled $7.56 billion in funding for “projects aimed at research and deployment of clean energy and other climate-friendly technology” on October 1. This figure does not include the other $14 billion in clean energy projects that were scrapped or downsized as of May.
Even some on Fox News have pointed out that this strategy could conflict with Trump’s stated goals for energy production. The administration's massive effort to hinder renewable energy and revive coal is similarly confounding if the goal is to compete with China, whose solar and wind installations in May alone “could generate as much electricity as Poland, Sweden or the United Arab Emirates.”
During the Fox Business interview, Morrissey claimed that “taxpayers were really getting hurt tremendously in recent years with a lot of these green new deal scams” and that more coal is necessary “for the ability of the country to survive long-term to meet the energy demands of tomorrow.”
Taxpayers in West Virginia are hurting in part because the state gets about 86% of its electricity from coal. On the same day that Trump announced his plan for coal, The New York Times reported that “the state’s electricity costs have risen much faster than the national average.” Though the average cost for electricity is still below average, West Virginians tend to earn less overall than elsewhere, with a 2024 average salary about $23,000 less than the national average.
The Times explained that on top of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine squeezing energy prices, regulators are pushing utilities in West Virginia into long-term contracts with coal plants, even as some plants shut down because of “failing demand for their products nationally.” For example, the electric utility Appalachian Power is “locked into contracts that require it to buy coal at relatively high prices.”
The very policies that Morrisey and Trump denounce have actually helped spur major economic growth in West Virginia. In Weirton, Form Energy's battery production plant created hundreds of jobs, hiring former steelworkers. When the project broke ground in 2023, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources put out a press release on then-Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) attendance of the ceremony in Weirton, West Virginia, saying, “Form Energy’s investment in West Virginia is a result of the Inflation Reduction Act.”
In December 2024, the think tank Rocky Mountain Institute predicted that West Virginia’s funding potential from the IRA could have been $17 billion, 60% of which could have gone toward the electricity sector.
SOC SAFE NET STEALTH ATTACK? RFK2
AN 4 25
While Republicans throughout the United States are intensifying efforts to regulate soda, lawmakers in Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, Michigan, Arizona, and South Carolina have reportedly declined to support a ban on the drink. However, they are aligned with businessman Michael Bloomberg's other initiatives: banning the purchase of soda with food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
An article in the Atlantic by Nicholas Florko published on Tuesday noted that these states are taking cues from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed strong opposition to allowing low-income Americans on SNAP to use government funds to buy soda.
"The soda wars have long broken along partisan lines. New York City’s ban was struck down in court before it could go into effect, but even more modest attempts to regulate soda have been concentrated in deeply blue cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco. Liberals drink soda too, of course, though the drink’s biggest defenders are on the right. President Donald Trump loves Diet Coke so much that in both of his terms, he’s had a button installed in the Oval Office to summon a refill; on the campaign trail, now–Vice President J. D. Vance claimed that Democrats see Diet Mountain Dew, his drink of choice, as 'racist,'" the article reads.
ALSO READ: 'You own this': Top GOP senator who backed RFK Jr. now under attack after HHS mass firings
"The federal government’s own research has shown that Americans who receive food stamps have worse diets than nonparticipants with similar incomes, and soda is surely part of that problem. These proposed bans should be even more palatable because they wouldn’t be permanent; they are pilot programs to try out the idea."
Overall, Democrats largely continue to stand against soda bans, the article notes. In both Idaho and Arizona, no Democratic legislators in the state Senates supported the proposed measures in their states. To effectively address soda consumption in the U.S., initiatives like these will need to be included in the solution, the author said.
He further pointed out that the Republican Party’s "about-face on soda" is more stark in West Virginia.
"In July, the state removed its soda tax. And now, less than a year later, it is pushing forward with a SNAP soda ban as part of an effort to decrease consumption of 'ultra-processed crap that barely qualifies as food,' Republican Governor Patrick Morrisey said late last month," the article notes.
ALSO READ:A deadly mosquito-borne illness is rising in the US as Trump cuts health funding
Many seasoned advocates against soda express skepticism about Republicans' motives. Marion Nestle, a professor emeritus at NYU and the author of Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (And Winning), has supported bans on soda within the SNAP program. She told the Atlantic that she views the current Republican initiatives as a disguise for their true aim, which is to reduce SNAP funding. Nestle added that while soda is detrimental to health, restricting food stamps also poses risks and that research indicates that the program greatly alleviates food insecurity and lowers healthcare expenses.
Supporters of the soda ban emphasize that the official name of the food-stamp program is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, highlighting that a two-liter bottle of Pepsi does not contribute to nutritional assistance. However, public health and anti-hunger advocates contend that any food is better than having no food at all.
===
an 4 25
Through what Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, called “dirty tricks” in the last 30 minutes of the 2025 regular session, Republican lawmakers in the Senate passed a bill Saturday to ban nearly all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the state of West Virginia.
The bill passed the House at 10:41 p.m. after nearly three hours of debate.
When the bill advanced to the Senate, 13 amendments from Garcia appeared to be pending on the legislation.
Then, confusion reigned.
Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, made a motion to suspend legislative Joint Rule 3 — a rule that governs how amendments to amendments and disagreements are handled between the two legislative chambers. That motion was adopted and the Senate then concurred with and passed the House’s version of the bill 31-2 without any consideration of Garcia’s amendments.
After a short break — and as several attorneys and the chamber’s parliamentarian gathered at Senate President Randy Smith’s podium — Tarr withdrew his initial motion to suspend legislative Joint Rule 3 due to a technical error. The vote would need to be done again.
Another member then moved the previous question to consider the Joint Rule 3 motion again and concur with and pass the House’s version of Senate Bill 474. Again, the Senate voted 31-2 approving the bill.
As motion after confusing motion was considered, the microphones for both Garcia and Sen. Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell — the lone no votes on the bill — were muted while they attempted to call points of order on Tarr’s motions as well as Smith’s rulings.
In an interview after the chaos, Smith, R-Preston, said he also didn’t quite understand the legislative procedures that led to the passage of SB 474. His job, he said, is to preside over the body and the process, but other people tell him what is within the rules and not.
“This was a procedure I’ve never seen in my 13 years in the House or the Senate,” Smith said “… We have a parliamentarian who knows the rules very well, probably better than anybody in the Senate. Sen. Tarr knows the procedure very well … As far as I’m concerned, as the procedure and rules, everything was in order.”
If it wasn’t, Smith said, someone will need to challenge the law’s legitimacy in court. But for now, it heads to Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s desk for approval.
Garcia, in an interview after the Senate adjourned Sine Die for the session, said he believed there is a “legal deficiency” in the legislation.
“I have questions whether this bill actually did pass,” Garcia said. “… [Republicans in the Senate] will take short cuts, break rules, whatever it takes to get their agenda passed.”
Senate Bill 474 bans the offering of specific services or opportunities to people based on their race, color, ethnicity, country of origin and, in some instances, sex.
The bill only applies to DEI policies and initiatives in state and local governments and schools, including institutions of higher education.
Garcia’s attempt to hold up the bill came after his colleagues in the House — mostly Democrats — employed similar tactics. There, 27 amendments were filed by lawmakers. Just three of those were adopted.
Those voted down included moves to include the Crown Act — a policy banning discrimination based on hairstyles and textures — in the bill, as well as adding nondiscrimination measures based on political beliefs and exempting parts of the bill from applying to veterans, among other measures.
Democrats in the body gave fiery speeches against the overall bill, namely Del. Anitra Hamilton, D-Monongalia, who is one of just three Black lawmakers in the state Legislature.
Hamilton told her colleagues that DEI measures are not about giving people of color or other classes special treatment; they’re about ensuring everyone has equal ability to apply for and access the same opportunities.
She shared her experiences dealing with system racism in West Virginia and, specifically, at the Legislature. Her points were echoed by her colleagues, Minority Leader Sean Hornbuckle, D-Cabell, and Del. Hollis Lewis, D-Kanawha, who are also Black.
Not recognizing the existence of racism or sexism, Hamilton said, will only hold West Virginia back.
“Diversity, equity and inclusion matters,” Hamilton said. “If we don’t embrace these principles, we don’t have a bone in the race of this Backyard Brawl. We’ll continue to lose every year … I just pray that we can not only abolish this legislation, we can abolish the mentality and ideology that goes along with it, and the energy.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE. SUPPORT
West Virginia Watch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. West Virginia Watch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Leann Ray for questions: info@westvirginiawatch.com.
===
{{{== note ccr 1st amend bs
desmog 4 24
fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.
The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.
Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’s
warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”
The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.
Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.
“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.
Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”
The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”
In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”
Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.
Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.
The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)
In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.
Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.
Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.
And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.
‘Prepared to challenge it in court’
In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”
Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.
If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.
In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.
During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.
“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.
“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”
---
REF DESMOG
March 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judicial panel on Thursday consolidated at least nine lawsuits challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's new rules requiring public companies to report climate-related risks in a venue favored by Republican-led states and a business group.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen randomly via a lottery and will consider the legal challenges to the landmark rule, which aims to standardize public company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The court, which has 10 Republican-appointed active judges and one appointed by a Democratic president, was the venue where nine Republican-led states including Iowa, Montana and North Dakota and the business lobbying group American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed their challenge.
Representatives for the Republican-led states and industry challengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC declined to comment.
First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats.
They were approved by the SEC on March 6, and the first lawsuit seeking to block them was filed later that day.
The consolidated lawsuits include challenges filed by at least 25 Republican-led states, energy industry companies and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, seeking to overturn the rules.
They have argued, among other things, that the disclosure requirements amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.
Challengers on the other side of the issue like the environmental organization the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council have meanwhile said the rules do not go far enough to protect investors, and arbitrarily stripped the final version of stronger reporting requirement rules.
Representatives for the environmental groups said they look forward to arguing before the court.
The conservative-dominated 5th Circuit, the court where Texas and energy companies filed their challenges, temporarily paused the rules from going into effect on Friday.
The SEC is expected to ask the 8th Circuit to revisit that ruling. It had told the 5th Circuit a pause was unnecessary, since the rules have extended compliance deadlines that do not require disclosures before March 2026.}:
The agency has also said the rules "fit comfortably within" its authority to require disclosure of information important to investors, and that they would provide "consistent, comparable and reliable information" about climate risks.
The nine lawsuits were filed in six appeals courts. The 8th Circuit had previously set a deadline for the challengers who sued in that court to file their opening brief in May.
--
REF
March 6 (Reuters) - Ten Republican-led states have sued to challenge new federal rules that require U.S.-listed companies to report climate-related risks, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Attorney General's Office said on Wednesday, hours after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rules.
The states, which also include Georgia, Alabama and Alaska, filed the petition at the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the spokesperson. The rules aim to standardize climate-related company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The Sierra Club environmental group, meanwhile, said it was considering suing the SEC because it believed the new rules did not go far enough.
The SEC, Wall Street’s top regulator, said the information would give investors reliable information about financial risks companies face related to climate change.
An SEC spokesperson said in a statement that the agency crafts rules that are consistent with its legal authority, and that it will "vigorously defend" the climate disclosure rules in court.
First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats. Similar disclosure requirements have been adopted in Europe and in California.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey on Wednesday said during a press conference that the Biden administration is trying to act as a "puppeteer" using public companies to drive forward its climate agenda.
Republican-led states had been signaling their intent to challenge the rules for years, arguing in public comments in 2022 that they amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.
They claimed then the rules would require companies to create, gather and disclose a “crushing” amount of material that goes well beyond the finance-based disclosures that investors need.
Anticipating legal challenges, the Biden administration had dropped more ambitious elements of the rules requiring companies to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, indirect emissions by suppliers or customers.
For many businesses, Scope 3 emissions account for 70% of their carbon footprint, according to the consulting firm Deloitte.
The final SEC rules also allow larger companies to determine whether emissions from their own operations and the power they purchase constitute information investors need to make decisions.
Morrisey said that despite changes to the proposed rule, the finalized rule was still defective and unconstitutional.
The Sierra Club, one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., said in a statement it was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the SEC's decision to remove the more robust reporting requirements. The group said it would also defend the SEC's legal authority to issue and implement the rules.
In California state court, litigation has been already been filed by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging that state’s climate disclosure laws, which include Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. That lawsuit filed in January said the state’s laws will impose “massive” costs on businesses and violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution by compelling the disclosures.
===}}}
===
3/24
wASHINGTON (AP) — A new Biden administration rule that sets tougher standards for deadly soot pollution faced a barrage of legal challenges Wednesday, as 25 Republican-led states and a host of business groups filed lawsuits seeking to block the rule in court.
Twenty-four states, led by attorneys general from Kentucky and West Virginia, filed a joint challenge stating that new Environmental Protection Agency rule would raise costs for manufacturers, utilities and families and could block new manufacturing plants and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Texas filed a separate suit, as did business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers.
“The EPA’s new rule has more to do with advancing President (Joe) Biden’s radical green agenda than protecting Kentuckians’ health or the environment, said Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, who is leading the joint lawsuit along with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.
The EPA rule “will drive jobs and investment out of Kentucky and overseas, leaving employers and hardworking families to pay the price,” Coleman said.
READ MORE
Watchdog: EPA’s lead pipe fix sent about $3 billion to states based on unverified data
Racial bias did not shape Mississippi’s water funding decisions for capital city, EPA says
US’s largest public utility ignores warnings in moving forward with new natural gas plant
The soot rule is one of several EPA dictates under attack from industry groups and Republican-led states. The Supreme Court heard arguments last month on a GOP challenge to the agency’s “good neighbor rule,” which restricts smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas.
Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective. The rule is on hold in a dozen states because of the court challenges.
In opposing the soot rule, Republicans and industry groups say the United States already has some of the strictest air quality standards in the world — tougher than the European Union or major polluters such as China and India.
Tightening U.S. standards “wouldn’t improve public health, but it would put as many as 30% of all U.S. counties out of compliance under federal law, leading to aggressive new permitting requirements that could effectively block new economic activity,’' Coleman said.
The EPA rule sets maximum levels of fine particle pollution — more commonly known as soot — at 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from 12 micrograms established a decade ago under the Obama administration.
Environmental and public health groups hailed the rule as a major step to improve the health of Americans, including future generations. EPA scientists have estimated exposure at previous limits contributed to thousands of early deaths from heart disease and lung cancer, along with other health problems.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the new soot rule, finalized last month, would create $46 billion in net health benefits by 2032, including prevention of up to 800,000 asthma attacks and 4,500 premature deaths. The rule will especially benefit children, older adults and those with heart and lung conditions, Regan said, as well as people in low-income and minority communities adversely affected by decades of industrial pollution.
“We do not have to sacrifice people to have a prosperous and booming economy,″ Regan said.
Biden is seeking reelection, and some fellow Democrats have warned that a tough new soot standard could harm his chances in key industrial states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The EPA and White House officials brushed aside those concerns, saying the industry has developed technical improvements to meet previous soot standards and can adapt to meet the new ones. Soot pollution has declined by 42% since 2000, even as the U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 52%, Regan said.
The new rule does not impose pollution controls on specific industries. Instead, it lowers the annual standard for fine particulate matter for overall air quality. The EPA will use air sampling to identify counties and other areas that do not meet the new standard. States would then have 18 months to develop compliance plans for those areas. States that do not meet the new standard by 2032 could face penalties, although EPA said it expects that 99% of U.S. counties will be able to meet the revised annual standard by 2032.
Industry groups and Republican officials dispute that and say a lower soot limit could put hundreds of U.S. counties out of compliance.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the White House in January that 43% of total particulate emissions come from wildfires, and called the pollution standard “the wrong tool to address this problem.’'
The EPA said it will work with states, counties and tribes to account for and respond to wildfires, an increasing source of soot pollution, especially in the West, where climate change has led to longer wildfire seasons, with more frequent and intense fires. The agency allows states and air agencies to request exemptions from air-quality standards due to “exceptional events,” including wildfires and prescribed fires.
Besides Kentucky, West Virginia and Texas, other states challenging the EPA rule include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming.
All three cases were filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
===
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/politics/ex-morrisey-aide-joins-law-firm-fighting-against-clean-power-plan/
no lnx
former West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin has landed a job with a corporate law firm that represents power companies in their fight against the enforcement of the federal Clean Power Plan regulations that seek to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants.
Gazette-Mail file photo
Former West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin has landed a job with a corporate law firm that represents power companies in their fight against the enforcement of the federal Clean Power Plan regulations that seek to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants.
Lin, who was hired by the Hunton & Williams law firm this week, helped persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to place a stay on the Clean Power Plan regulations.
Last year, Lin and two Hunton & Williams lawyers took part in oral arguments against the Clean Power Plan before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hunton & Williams represented the Utility Regulatory Air Group, a trade association whose members include American Electric Power, Dominion Resources, Southern Company and Duke Energy.
In a press release, Hunton & Williams lauded Lin’s work as West Virginia’s solicitor general, saying he “won several critical victories in federal courts,” including a halt to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to enforce the Clean Power Plan.
The law firm’s release included a statement from West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, Lin’s former boss.
“Elbert is a tremendous lawyer, writer and oral advocate whosetalent and work ethic won him respect in the courtroom, in the office and throughout the community,” Morrisey said. “For more than four years, he played a leading role in many of this office’s successes, in matters of national and local importance. West Virginia is better off because of his and his family’s public service.”
The Clean Power Plan is on hold because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order that blocked the measure pending a D.C. Circuit ruling.
:{
}:
The EPA rule, a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts to combat climate change, would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and has been strongly opposed by the mining industry and most West Virginia political leaders.
President Donald Trump has directed the EPA to begin the complex and potentially lengthy process of withdrawing the Clean Power Plan.
:{
}:
On Thursday, Trump nominated a Hunton & Williams lawyer, William Wehrum, to lead EPA’s air office, according to E&E News. Wehrum is a partner at Hunton & Williams.
Earlier in his career, Lin clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Morrisey hired Lin in 2013, luring Lin away from the Wiley Rein law firm in Washington, D.C., where he successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commission’s first attempt at a net neutrality order, which aimed to establish internet regulations. After Morrisey hired him, Lin spent his first several months as Morrisey’s special assistant because he wasn’t licensed to practice law in West Virginia at the time.
As solicitor general, Lin oversaw the state’s civil and criminal appeals, federal litigation and attorney general opinions.
In June, the state Ethics Commission granted Lin’s request for an employment exemption, which allowed him to seek a job with a regulated private sector entity while continuing to be employed by the state.
Earlier this year, BuzzFeed reported that President Donald Trump’s administration had interviewed Lin for a federal district judgeship in Washington, D.C.
Reach Eric Eyre at ericeyre@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-4869 or follow @ericeyre on Twitter.
===
===
firstenergy bribery crimes householder:
The top recipient from this group was West Virginia’s top legal officer, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.The pro-coal Republican notoriously led the multi-state and industry lawsuit against the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, and successfully halted the first significant climate regulation in America. Morrisey currently has more than six times the cash on hand as his Democratic challenger.
Other top recipients of FirstEnergy in the law enforcement category include Kandy Fatheree, a Democrat running for sheriff in Summit County, Ohio, and Tim Armstead, the Chief Justice of West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals.
Click HERE to see the entire chart, get a shareable and embeddable version, and/or explore the data behind it.
Bonus recipient: A former top Trump advisor
This isn’t about FirstEnergy’s PAC, but it’s notable because it shines a light on what FirstEnergy is trying to do when it contributes to federal officials.
Since President Trump was inaugurated, FirstEnergy has spent more than $8 million lobbying the federal government on energy, climate and environment policy—and has hired at least one lobbyist close to Trump to do it.
Approximately $1.3 million of FirstEnergy’s lobbying budget since 2017 has gone to Jeff Miller, the former vice chair of President Trump’s inaugural committee and one of Trump’s “top fundraisers.”
FirstEnergy currently pays Miller about $440,000 per year to lobby Congress, the president, and the vice president on “issues related to grid resilience” and “organized electricity markets.”
Other FirstEnergy lobbying priorities include the Trump administration’s repeal of Obama-era climate regulations; two bills to ease pollution control requirements for power plants and industrial facilities, and a bill to allow more toxic emissions from power plants that burn coal waste byproducts.
===
==
W.Va. Coal Association breaks with Manchin for Morrisey
E&E News PM: Tuesday, August 21, 2018
:{:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:
The West Virginia Coal Association endorsed Republican Senate candidate Patrick Morrisey, breaking with Democrat Joe Manchin for the first time in his long political career.
==
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey congratulated Deputy Solicitor General Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. on his appointment as general counsel for the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC formally announced the appointment Thursday morning. He joins the FCC next week.
==
attorney serving as the 34th and current Attorney General of West Virginia since 2013. He is a member of the Republican Party.
Morrisey was elected Attorney General of West Virginia in 2012, becoming the first Republican to serve in the role since 1933.[1]Running for the United States Senate in 2018, Morrisey won the Republican Party nomination and will face incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Manchin in the November general election.[2]
beat blankenship?
===
aug 2016
Prescription drug money fuels Morrisey campaign
Eric EyreDavid Gutman Aug 6, 2016 (0)
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey’s re-election campaign is benefiting from money — both directly and indirectly — from lawyers and companies that have profited from the state’s prescription drug epidemic.
Prescription drug wholesalers being sued by Morrisey’s office for their role in fueling the state’s ongoing opioid problem have indirectly funded a portion of Morrisey’s re-election efforts.
Since 2014, McKesson Corp. and Cardinal Health, both defendants in state lawsuits overseen by Morrisey, have donated a total of $50,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which has spent more money than any other organization in West Virginia to re-elect Morrisey.
What’s more, at least two lawyers representing drug distributors in the lawsuits have contributed directly to Morrisey’s campaign.
Morrisey also has taken campaign contributions from OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma.
Morrisey is the only candidate in West Virginia, at any level of office, from House of Delegates, to Congress, through the governor’s race, to receive money from Purdue Pharma’s political action committee, which gave him the maximum allowable $1,000 in his uncontested primary election.
He is the only West Virginia candidate to receive money ($1,000) from Mallinckrodt, an Irish pharmaceutical company that produces several opioid products.
On the campaign trail, Morrisey has repeatedly touted his office’s “aggressive” fight against prescription drug abuse, and he has introduced initiatives that he says will significantly curb the number of opioids in West Virginia.
Morrisey campaign spokeswoman Kayla Berube said Morrisey holds the office and his campaign to the “highest of ethical standards.”
“He has a policy that prohibits intentional solicitation and acceptance of contributions from companies the office is suing,” Berube said.
Del. Don Perdue said Morrisey, a former lobbyist for the prescription drug industry, has “put his office up for sale.”
“Any argument that suggests these type of contributions are innocuous or have no effect defies logic,” said Perdue, a Wayne County Democrat and retired pharmacist.“Coupled with his strong personal ties to the drug industry and the legal gymnastics he has performed to slow down the litigation regarding the distribution of narcotics, it defies belief.”
While Purdue Pharma isn’t a defendant in the state’s lawsuits against drug wholesalers, the complaints allege the distributors shipped an excessive number of oxycodone pills (often sold under Purdue’s OxyContin brand name) to rogue pharmacies in West Virginia. The companies distribute more than 40 million oxycodone pills to West Virginia every year.
:{
}:
Thirty-five lawyers — whose Washington, D.C.-based law firms either lobby for Purdue Pharma or represent the drug giant in OxyContin-related lawsuits across the nation — have given Morrisey’s re-election campaign a combined $23,550 in the primary election cycle alone.
Purdue Pharma, whose drug is held more responsible than any other for the nation’s opioid epidemic, gave $290,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association since 2014, IRS records show.
“We contribute to those who share our commitment in combating prescription drug abuse,” said Bob Josephson, communications director for Purdue Pharma.
During the same time period, Cardinal Health, the nation’s second largest prescription drug distributor, gave more than $34,000, and McKesson, the largest wholesaler, pitched in $16,000.
Morrisey inherited lawsuits against Cardinal Health and a dozen other distributors from his predecessor, Darrell McGraw. In January, Morrisey filed suit against McKesson after Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s aides prodded him to do so for more than a year.
RAGA also received donations totaling nearly $37,000 from two law firms — Foley & Lardner and Clark Hill PLC — that are representing other prescription drug distributors Morrisey’s office is suing.
The Republican Attorneys General Association, through an affiliated political action committee, has already spent nearly $640,000 in West Virginia this year to help re-elect Morrisey. That’s more than Morrisey and his Democratic opponent, Delegate Doug Reynolds, combined have spent on their campaigns so far.
:{
}:
That PAC, Mountaineers Are Always Free PAC, was founded in May and is funded exclusively by RAGA.
Scott Will, RAGA’s executive director and chairman of Mountaineers Are Always Free, was Morrisey’s campaign manager in 2012.
RAGA has also received major donations from such drug industry titans as Pfizer ($150,000), Eli Lilly ($76,000), GlaxoSmithKline ($50,000) and PhRMA ($50,000), the leading industry trade organization, representing nearly 60 pharmaceutical companies.
:{
}:
The donations from drug companies and their law firms are a veritable drop in the bucket for RAGA, which has raised more than $15 million this election cycle. The organization’s major donors include conservative heavyweights such as Koch Industries, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Sheldon Adelson.
“RAGA receives support from a wide variety of people and industries interested in supporting the rule of law,” Will said in an emailed statement.
McKesson, Cardinal Health and Purdue Pharma also have donated to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, but that group hasn’t spent any money in West Virginia. Reynolds has largely self-funded his campaign so far and has not received help from any outside groups or super PACs.
RAGA, which advertises on Morrisey’s behalf, is legally prohibited from coordinating with his campaign.
In April, Huntington lawyer Marc Williams gave $500 to Morrisey’s campaign — one of two lawyers to donate to the campaign who also represents a drug distributor that Morrisey’s office is suing.
:{
}:
“I don’t think there is any conflict,” Williams said. “All of the counsel that are representing the state in that, which includes staff attorneys and retained outside counsel, have done so vigorously and represented the state’s interest well in a way that would make any objective observer proud.”
Williams said he has also worked on other cases that Morrisey’s office is involved in — both with and against the attorney general — including litigation over the 2014 Elk River chemical spill, where he represents Eastman Chemical.
Williams, who’s defending drug wholesaler J.M. Smith, praised Morrisey, saying he had “significantly enhanced the quality of representation and lawyering in that office since he took over” in 2013.
The other drug company lawyer, Charles Bailey, did not respond to requests for comment. Bailey, who represents Quest Pharmaceuticals, gave Morrisey $1,000 in 2015.
Another lawyer who formerly represented a drug wholesaler being sued also donated to Morrisey’s campaign in May.
Two of Morrisey’s former employers — Washington, D.C., law firms King & Spalding and Sidley Austin — have given RAGA a combined $30,350.
:{
}:
King & Spalding is lead defense counsel for Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin-related lawsuits. Sidley Austin lobbies for Purdue Pharma on Capitol Hill.
While Morrisey worked for Sidley Austin, lobbyists for Purdue Pharma listed Morrisey as the firm’s contact, according to lobbying disclosure forms.
At King & Spalding, Morrisey himself lobbied for the Healthcare Distribution Management Association, a trade group that represents McKesson, Cardinal Health and other prescription drug wholesalers, generating $250,000 for the firm.
Morrisey’s wife, Denise Henry, lobbies for Cardinal Health in Washington.
:{
}:
Since last year, King & Spalding lawyers contributed $14,800 to Morrisey’s campaign, while Sidley Austin lawyers and lobbyists have added $8,750 to his coffers.
Lawyers from both firms, along with prescription drug wholesaler PACs and executives, also helped bankroll Morrisey’s 2012 campaign.
Cardinal Health executives donated $4,000 to Morrisey’s campaign in 2012, $3,000 of which came after McGraw’s office filed suit against the company. A Cardinal vice president also contributed $1,000 to Morrisey’s campaign in December 2012, a month after Morrisey defeated McGraw. Cardinal Health also contributed $2,500 to Morrisey’s inauguration ceremony
A McKesson vice president contributed to Morrisey’s campaign in 2012, and AmerisourceBergen’s PAC donated $2,000 to the campaign the same year.
In January, Morrisey recused himself from his office’s lawsuit against AmerisourceBergen and 10 other smaller distributors, following a state Lawyer Disciplinary Board investigation. The disciplinary board concluded that Morrisey did not violate any lawyer ethics rules, but the board suggested he step aside from the drug company lawsuit to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
That same month, Morrisey also recused himself from his office’s lawsuit against McKesson, after heading an investigation of the company for more than a year.
Morrisey previously stepped aside from the Cardinal Health lawsuit — a recusal he characterized as a “permanent screen” — in July 2013, seven months after taking office, according to the disciplinary board.
The investigative panel found the contributions from the drug wholesalers and their executives didn’t appear to “amount to extraordinary campaign support,” and it wasn’t unethical for Morrisey to accept the donations.
But the disciplinary board noted that attorneys general in other states restrict campaign contributions from companies their offices are investigating.
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5199 or follow @davidgutman on Twitter.
Reach Eric Eyre at ericeyre@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-4869
===
==
West Virginia
RAGA CPP
Persuading lawmakers to offer legislation has been another effective lobbying tool. In West Virginia, Mr. Miller handed Attorney General Patrick Morrisey a draft of legislation that he argued would put West Virginia in a better position to sue the Obama administration over proposed regulations to tighten pollution controls on power plants, emails show.
“I trust you will find the legislation acceptable in its present form,” Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Morrisey in February, referring to a private meeting the two had had in the law library of Mr. Morrisey’s office in Charleston. “If so, I would appreciate your having it introduced by your friends in both the Senate and the House.”
A version of the bill was introduced and passed by the West Virginia Legislature in March. Delegate Rupert Phillips Jr., the chief sponsor of a second bill that also contained language identical to what Mr. Miller had requested, said in an interview that he had acted with Mr. Morrisey’s support, an account supported by William B. Raney, the president of the West Virginia Coal Association.
“It is nice to have everybody singing from the same sheet of music,” Mr. Raney said.
A spokesman for Mr. Morrisey disputed this account, saying that while he supported the effort to challenge the rule, he did not play a role in promoting the legislation....
==
**Billy Tauzin**: Former chair of the the**Energy and Commerce Committee**, which had oversight of the drug industry, who after retiring from Congress in late 2004 started as head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in January 2005.
Legislative history
According to the New York Times December 17, 2004 editorial W.J."Billy" Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee from 2001 until February 4, 2004was one of the chief architects of the new Medicare law.[6][7] In 2004 when Tauzin was appointed as chief lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the trade association and lobby group for the drug industry with a "rumored salary of $2 million a year,"[6] drawing criticism from a Washington-based Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy group. They claimed that Tauzin "may have been negotiating for the lobbying job while writing the Medicare legislation."[7][8]
"It's a sad commentary on politics in Washington that a member of Congress who pushed through a major piece of legislation benefiting the drug industry, gets the job leading that industry."
— Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook 2004
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said,[7]
"I think if seniors want to know why the pharmaceutical companies made out so well at their expense, all they have to do is look at this. This is an abuse of power. This is a conflict of interest."
— House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi 2004
The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six months in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.
Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.
On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21. The bills were unified in conference, and on November 21, the bill came back to the House for approval.
The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215, with David Wu (D-OR-1) not voting. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. Istook, who had always been a wavering vote, consented quickly, producing a 218-216 tally. In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea." After controversy ensued, Smith clarified no explicit offer of campaign funds was made, but that he was offered "substantial and aggressive campaign support" which he had assumed included financial support.[9]
About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.[10]
The Democrats cried foul, and Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means committee, challenged the result in a gesture to satisfy the concerns of the minority. He subsequently voted to table his own challenge; the tally to table was 210 ayes, 193 noes.[citation needed]
The Senate's consideration of the conference report was somewhat less heated, as cloture on it was invoked by a vote of 70-29.[11] However, a budget point of order raised by Tom Daschle, and voted on. As 60 votes were necessary to override it, the challenge was actually considered to have a credible chance of passing.
For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.[12] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.[13]
Costs
Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. Administration official Thomas Scully instructed analyst Richard Foster not to tell Congress of Foster's finding that the cost would actually be over $500 billion. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.[14] As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion.[15]
http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-11-2009/part_3_the_doughnut_hole.html
==
In states with large coal mining industries, the proposals have proven controversial as well.West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R)Obama's proposals will plunge his state into "an abyss of poverty." Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R)the plan a "war on jobs."
==
wiki
Patrick James Morrisey (born December 21, 1967) is the Attorney General of West Virginia. He is a member of the Republican Party.
Contents
Early life and education
Born in Brooklyn, New York, Morrisey grew up in Edison, New Jersey.[1] His father was account manager at U.S. Steel, while his mother worked as a registered nurse.[1] Morrisey ran cross-country and played on his high school's tennis team, before he graduated from Bishop George Ahr High School in 1985.[1]
Morrisey graduated from Rutgers College with a Bachelor of Arts in history and political science in 1989.[2] He also attended Rutgers School of Law–Newark, receiving his juris doctor in 1992.[3]
Career
After graduating from Rutgers, Morrisey opened a private law firm in 1992. He practiced health care, election, regulatory and communications law at the lobbying group Arent Fox, from 1995 to 1999.[4] Morrisey served as deputy staff director and chief health counsel for the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce from 1999 to 2004, where he worked on the passage of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act and theMedicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (establishing Medicare Part D).[5] He ran unsuccessfully for the United States House of Representatives in New Jersey's 7th congressional district in 2000, receiving 9% of the vote in the Republican primary.[6] He worked for Sidley Austin before he joined King & Spalding in 2010, becoming a partner.[7]
In 2012, Morrisey ran for Attorney General of West Virginia against Darrell McGraw, a five-term incumbent.[7] He defeated McGraw and was sworn in on January 14, 2013, making him the first Republican state Attorney General since 1933.[8][9]
Recently questions have arisen about Morrisey's ties to Cardinal Health, his campaign funds and the lawsuit his predecessor filed against Cardinal Health. After his claim of recusing himself from the suit he met privately on several occasions with representatives of Cardinal Health.[10]
InAugust 2014, Morrisey filed a lawsuit, along with 11 other states, challenging the EPA's proposal to regulate coal-fired power plants as part of President Barack Obama's plan to mitigate climate change.[11]
Federal lawsuits
Legal strategy
Morrisey says that the West Virginia Attorney General's Office has "worked to fight federal overreach by filing amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court on a number of issues, ranging from protecting the Second Amendment to defending state jobs and our valuable energy resources."[12]He has said that he did not expect to win many court cases and his "goal for the Obama agenda" was to "gum up the courts enough over the course of the next four years to be able to slow down the Obama administration on these regulations" and "that is going to be the best we can do."[13][14][15] He said his plan was "limit the damage that the Obama administration can inflict on our citizens" [16] and "make it as hard as possible for the administration to finalize invalid rules." [17]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
On July 29, 2014, State of West Virginia v United States HHS, et al. (1:14-cv-01287-RBW) was filed which challenges regulatory changes, described by the administration as an 'administrative fix', to the PPACA's implementation. The temporary fix allows insurance companies through October 2016 to renew health insurance policies that don’t meet ACA’s standards — as long as state insurance officials OK the extension.[18] Defendant (HHS) has submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion.[19][20][21][22]
Environmental Protection Agency
Morrisey's office has filed many amicus briefs in lawsuits challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with little success.
American Farm Bureau v. EPA. On September 13, 2013, in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said that the EPA had the authority under the Clean Water Act to impose a total maximum daily load standard for pollutants and that the procedures established were consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.[23] This is contrary to the argument by Morrisey's amicus brief which said that the "EPA's overreach in the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) infringes states' traditional rights the Clean Water Act intended to protect."[24][25]
Mingo Logan Coal v. EPA. On March 24, 2014, in Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the case without comment finding that the appeal had no merit.[26] The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief which said that the "EPA unlawfully vetoed permits issued by the**United States Army Corps** of Engineers."[27][28]
White Stallion v. EPA. On April 15, 2014, in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that the EPA's :{Mercury and Air Toxics:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: Standard (MATS) rule regulation of emissions from coal-fired electric generating units was appropriate and necessary and that the EPA acted within its legal authority and demonstrated a reasonable connection between its action and the record of decision.[29] The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief which said that the "EPA rule usurped the states’ authority by setting minimum substantive requirements for state performance standards."[30]
Homer City v. EPA. On April 29, 2014, in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, the U.S. Supreme Court said the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was a cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States and is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.[31]The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief which claimed that the "EPA exceeded its authority under the federal Clean Air Act when it promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule".[32][33]
Utility Air v. EPA. On June 23, 2014, in :{Utility Air Regulatory Group:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for greenhouse gases and that EPA’s decision to require BACT for greenhouse gases emitted by sources otherwise subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review is, as a general matter, a permissible interpretation of the statute.[34] The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief which said that the "EPA violated the U.S. Constitution and the Clean Air Act by concocting greenhouse gas regulations" and that court needed to "rein in a usurpatious agency and remind the President and his subordinates that they cannot rule by executive decree."[35][36]
Murray Energy v. EPA. On June 25, 2014, Morrisey and other attorneys general submitted an amicus brief [37] in Murray Energy v. EPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit[38] This lawsuit was prematurely filed before EPA has issued the final standards, which are not due until June 1, 2015.[39] The D.C. Circuit has already ruled less than two years earlier in December 2012 on this issue in Las Brisas Energy Center v. EPA. The court dismissed the case with a single short sentence: "The challenged proposed rule is not final agency action subject to judicial review."[40]
National Mining v. EPA. On July 11, 2014, in National Mining Association vs EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that the EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers had the statutory authority under the Clean Water Act to enact a procedure rule (Enhanced Coordination Process memorandum) to review mountaintop mining permits. [41]The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's briefwhich claimed that the "EPA was attempting to take for itself responsibilities reserved to the states and other federal agencies."[14]
West Virginia et al. v. EPA. On July 31, 2014, Morrisey and attorneys general from other states filed a lawsuit West Virginia et al. v. EPA[42][43] in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging a court ordered[44] settlement over three years earlier on March 2, 2011 between the EPA and 11 states - New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.[45] In this settlement, EPA promised to issue its now-pending rule establishing standards of performance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). A settlement was reach based on guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency in 2007 where the Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The attorneys general's lawsuit is over three years late. The EPA published the proposed settlement in December 2010, and Section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act allows a 30 day period to challenge any requirements of the Clean Air Act.[46]
Second Amendment
Morrisey has filed several amicus briefs in lawsuits challenging Second Amendment decisions withlittle success.
Kachalsky v. Cacace. On April 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Kachalsky v. Cacace which challenged a New York law that requires a person to show a particular need to obtain a permit to carry a firearm outside the home.[47] Morrisey and attorneys general from other states had submitted a brief challenging the lower court decision saying that the law "does not survive any level of scrutiny".[48][49]
Drake v. Jerejian. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Drake v. Jerejian which challenged New Jersey’s requirement that concealed carry permit applicants must demonstrate a “justifiable need” in order to be issued a handgun carry permit.[50] Morrisey and attorneys general from other states had submitted a brief challenging the lower court decision saying that New Jersey's law would "threaten" and "shake the foundation" of less restricting gun permitting schemes in other states."[51][52]
Abramski v. United States. On June 16. 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Abramski v. United States of America said that "regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable" under the law.[53] This is contrary to the claim made by Morrisey that the "Department of Justice wants to ensnare innocent West Virginian gun owners in a web of criminal laws if they try to sell their guns" and that "the administration’s interpretation oversteps the law and could make criminals out of innocent citizens."[54][55]
Personal
Morrisey moved to West Virginia in 2006.[56] He lives in Jefferson County with his wife and his stepdaughter.[7]
==
Andrew P. Miller, the lawyer and lobbyist for the coal industry, has an active practice that has included traveling to West Virginia to meet with Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a newly elected Republican, to push him to back legislation challenging the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.
KEY DOCUMENT
- ##### Coal lobbyist appeals to West Virginia attorney general for help fighting environmental regulations.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrisey to help push legislation opposing an Obama administration plan to regulate carbon emissions from existing coal-burning power plants. Legislation nearly identical to what Mr. Miller proposed was introduced in the West Virginia Legislature and then passed. Mr. Morrisey disputed any suggestion that he played a role.
==
WASHINGTON--President Barack Obama’s new push against climate change may resistance from Republican-led state governments.
Obama on Tuesday announced his long-term climate change plan that will includeregulations on coal-fired power plants.
Some states are likely to resist -- a continuation of long-running fight between Obama and Republican governors, state legislatures and attorneys general on a variety of issues.
"In some of these states, there's just going to be a sort of reflexive, anti-Obama response," Sean Kelly, a political science professor at California State University Channel Islands told The Huffington Post. "They'll go to court. Some attorney general will see an opportunity."
Still, Kelly said Environmental Protection Agency regulations on power plant emissions probably will be difficult for states to obstruct because of a Supreme Court ruling that gave the executive branch a mandate to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Some state attorneys general have already weighed in on the climate fight. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt signed onto a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to take up a case that challenges existing EPA greenhouse gas regulations. Other attorneys general, including Scott Pruitt from Oklahoma, have asked the federal government to grant states more authority to regulate natural gas drilling, or fracking. Texas' attorney general Greg Abbott, has petitioned the Supreme Court to take up his federal lawsuit challenging EPA's authority to regulate pollution.
In states with large coal mining industries, the proposals have proven controversial as well. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R)Obama's proposals will plunge his state into "an abyss of poverty." Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R)the plan a "war on jobs."
Clark said he has trouble convincing his Republican colleagues to view climate change as human-caused. In other states, including Missouri and Kansas, Republican-controlled legislatures recently have adopted a mixed bag of resolutions resisting federal and international recommendations for environmental policy.
Kansas state House Energy and Environment Committee Chairman Dennis Hedke (R-Wichita), led efforts in his stateto oppose the United Nations’ sustainability program, known as Agenda 21, along with banning sustainability in the state.
Hedke, a trained geophysicist who considers himself an environmentalist, told HuffPost he believes EPA regulations on energy producers are hurting businesses and families because of skyrocketing electricity bills. He also said the science used to promote policy is deeply flawed.
Existing EPA regulations have increased electricity costs in Kansas up to 60 percent in the last five years, Hedke said. Kansas' electricity costs are still 18 percent less expensive than the national average, according to an Institute for Energy Research fact sheet.
While Obama is likely to take action with executive power rather than legislation, Hedke and his counterparts in other states will have fewer options to resist. Nevertheless, they plan to fight back against the EPA and Obama.
"The EPA is just out of control. There's no other way to put it. And I'm going to fight the EPA with every fiber of my being for as long as I live," Hedke said. "We will take steps in the state of Kansas to try to push back on their unbelievable overreach and attempt to control the lives of Kansans and the people of the United States of America."
===
lipton part 3
‘Like a Family Party’
One night last week at the restaurant Rosa Mexicano in Washington, as margaritas flowed and trays of shrimp and chicken skewers were passed, the network between contingency-fee lawyers and Democratic attorneys general was on vivid display.
The restaurant was closed for a private holiday party hosted by the Democratic Attorneys General Association. These plaintiffs’ firms have donated more than $3.8 million to the group over the last decade, money that has been passed on in chunks to Democrats to help them with their re-election bids.
Ms. Singer, along with lawyers from at least nine other firms, worked the crowd, chatting up the attorneys general from Vermont, Virginia and other states, while Marlon E. Kimpson, a lawyer from Motley Rice, which focuses on securities litigation, introduced himself to the new attorneys general from Maryland and New Mexico. The event was co-sponsored by the law firm Kaplan Fox, which just secured a multimillion-dollar payout after suing the mortgage giant Fannie Mae on behalf of the State of Tennessee.
“It was like a family party,” said one lawyer who attended and who requested anonymity because it was a private event.
That is precisely the kind of coziness that has driven corporations to marshal a counteroffensive by challenging on multiple fronts attorneys general who hire contingency lawyers.
Darrell McGraw, who collected more than $2 billion worth of settlements in partnership with contingency-fee lawyers during his tenure as West Virginia’s attorney general, was one of the early targets.
“McGraw diverted millions to pet projects and to campaign donors he hired,” said one 2012 television advertisement during his re-election campaign, a reference to a settlement his office had negotiated with Purdue Pharma over its sale of painkillers. That deal included a $2 million payment to contingency-fee law firms whose partners were past campaign donors.
His campaign bought its own advertisement defending his efforts, as did an independent group called the Mountaineer Committee for Justice and Fairness that is funded in part by plaintiffs’ lawyers.
But Mr. McGraw said the assault was overwhelming, and he was defeated after two decades in office.
“They are simply able to eliminate people,” Mr. McGraw said.
The attempts to push back have come in federal and state courts as well. Companies as diverse as Diamond Foods, the snack food maker, and Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, have filed lawsuits or counterclaims arguing that the attorneys general improperly turned over state law enforcement powers to private parties, citing their financial incentive to push ahead with cases against them, even if the facts did not support the claims.
==