Holmstead, J esq

=pow mofo pending rev dr b2 and trump nope, just vol spox on mercurywhy on press speeddial?OMG (did not get gig?}<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/21/headlines/report_trump_to_name_coal_industry_lobbyist_as_epa_2nd_in_command">https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/21/headlines/report_trump_to_name_coal_industry_lobbyist_as_epa_2nd_in_command</a>President Trump is set to name coal industry lobbyist Jeff Holmstead as second-in-command at the Environmental Protection Agency, according to the news site Axios. Since 2007, Holmstead has represented coal, railroad and utility companies as a partner at the powerful firm Bracewell LLP on K Street in Washington, D.C. Holmstead is also a former staffer to Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a prominent climate change denier.no lnx<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/climate/epa-mercury-coal.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/climate/epa-mercury-coal.html</a>E.P.A. Weakens Controls on MercuryThe agency is changing the way it calculates the benefits of mercury controls, a move that would effectively loosen the rules on other toxic pollutants.By Lisa Friedman and Coral DavenportApril 16, 2020
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday  weakened regulations on the release of mercury and other toxic metals from oil and coal-fired power plants, another step toward rolling back health protections in the middle of a pandemic.The new Environmental Protection Agency rule does not eliminate restrictions on the release of mercury, a heavy metal linked to brain damage. Instead, it creates a new method of calculating the costs and benefits of curbing mercury pollution that environmental lawyers said would fundamentally undermine the legal underpinnings of controls on mercury and many other pollutants.By reducing the positive health effects of regulations on paper and raising their economic costs, the new method could be used to justify loosening restrictions on any pollutant that the fossil fuel industry has deemed too costly to control.“That is the big unstated goal,” said David Konisky, a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University. “This is less about mercury than about potentially constraining or handcuffing future efforts by the E.P.A. to regulate air pollution.”The proposed change is the latest in the Trump administration’s long-running effort to roll back environmental regulations and reduce regulatory burdens, particularly on the coal, oil and gas industries. Over the past three years the administration has weakened rules to cut planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, restrict coal companies from dumping debris in streams and claimed falsely that that President Trump has revived the dying coal industry.Over the past few weeks as the nation struggled with the coronavirus, the administration has also rushed to loosen curbs on automobile tailpipe emissions, opted not to strengthen a regulation on industrial soot emissions and moved to drop the threat of punishment to companies that kill birds “incidentally.”The deregulatory push appears designed to secure less restrictive rules quickly, in case Republicans lose control of Congress and the White House in November. A new government could move quickly under the Congressional Review Act to overturn any regulation or federal rule within 60 days of it being finalized — making any rule completed after late May or early June vulnerable.The mercury rollback is a particular victory for Robert E. Murray, the former chief executive of Murray Energy Corporation and a top fund-raiser for Mr. Trump. Mr. Murray personally requested the rollback in a written “wish list” to top officials shortly after the president took office. The company has since declared bankruptcy and is undergoing a reorganization.“Under this action, no more mercury will be emitted into the air than before,” Andrew R. Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator said in announcing the rule.  
Climate and Environment ›[Keep Up on the Latest Climate NewsOnce nonexistent, campaign cash earmarked as "climate donations" is flowing to Joe Biden as a small but growing counterweight to the monied muscle of fossil fuels.Environmental lawyers and public health leaders called the timing of the final mercury rule, as well as its substance, an attack on air quality.]“What is most disconcerting to me is this administration’s lack of interest in science and, frankly, their lack of concern for our nation’s children,” said Aaron Bernstein, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Mercury pollution in the United States damages our children’s brains before they even come into the world, and estimates are that that cost is in the billions of dollars.”Patrick Parenteau, a professor at the Vermont Law School, noted that in virtually every environmental rollback, Mr. Trump’s E.P.A. has acknowledged in the fine print that enormous increases in health problems and deaths will occur because of increased pollution.A plan to weaken carbon dioxide emissions at power plants, for example, predicted as many as 1,400 additional premature deaths a year. A draft analysis of the soot policy put forward this week showed that tightening the existing standard by 25 percent could save as many as 12,150 lives a year.Two people close to the administration said the White House was concerned enough about the public perception of loosening environmental rules during the outbreak that it held the mercury plan for several weeks after it passed a review from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. E.P.A. officials assured the White House that the agency was merely responding as required to a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that found it must justify the economic impact of the mercury standards.The weakening of the mercury rule would be one of the most significant regulatory rollbacks engineered by the Trump administration. The existing federal regulation on mercury pollution, completed in 2012, is the most expensive clean air regulation ever written by the E.P.A.When it published its draft cost-benefit changes last year, the Trump administration’s E.P.A. said the cost of cutting mercury from power plant emissions “dwarfs” the economic benefits and argued that the Obama rule could not be justified as “appropriate and necessary.”The E.P.A.’s 2012 regulation was the first federal standard to require power plants to install pricey pollution controls to limit mercury emissions — at a cost to industry of $9.6 billion a year. The Obama administration justified that cost with some mathematical legerdemain of its own. The Obama E.P.A. tallied not just the benefits of reducing mercury but also “co-benefits” like reducing sulfur dioxide, fine particulate matter and other pollutants that were also curbed by the equipment.In his announcement on Thursday, Mr. Wheeler called the Obama administration’s accounting of health benefits “dishonest.”Driving down mercury emissions alone, the studies at the time found, would yield a $6 million annual benefit, a fraction of the cost of the controls. But by adding in co-benefits like projected gains in avoided heart disease, asthma attacks and other health problems, the total benefits reached $80 billion over five years. Overall, the Obama administration estimated that the rule would prevent 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks and 11,000 premature deaths each year.Under the Trump administration’s new rule, such co-benefits will no longer be calculated with cost, only direct benefits.While coal producers urged Mr. Trump to roll back the rule, the vast majority of electric utility companies have agreed the cost-benefit changes may be of little help to them, because they have already spent the billions of dollars needed to come into compliance. Many of those companies urged the Trump administration to leave the mercury measure in place.Coal plants subject to the rule “have already spent millions of dollars to install mercury equipment to reduce mercury emissions,” wrote Scott A. Weaver, the director of air quality services for American Electric Power, an Ohio-based electric utility company that operates power plants in 11 states, in a public comment on a draft of the rule.“Rescinding the standards at this point will create new problems” Mr. Weaver wrote, noting that companies that have sought to recoup the cost of installing mercury control equipment through bills to customers may no longer legally be able to do so. That means the new rule could actually cost companies more money.Yet in comments to the E.P.A, major coal companies and the United States Chamber of Commerce also supported changing the underlying cost-benefit analysis to prevent future rules that they might consider onerous.Matthew Davis, a former E.P.A. scientist who worked with the agency’s office of children’s health protection to develop the original rule, said weakening the rule still represented a threat to children’s health.“The reason we did this rule is because children and developing fetuses are harmed by mercury,” said Mr. Davis, who now works at the League of Conservation Voters.Jeffrey R. Holmstead, an attorney for the electric utility industry who served in the E.P.A. under the second President George Bush, rejected the idea that the decision was a cynical calculation to set the stage for other regulatory rollbacks.“It’s not as if the administration has been shy about rolling back other things,” Mr. Holmstead said, dismissing environmental concerns. “I don’t think there’s any impact whatsoever from this.”In Congress, the Obama-era mercury rule has bipartisan support. Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works committee, and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the chairman of an energy and water appropriations subcommittee, wrote an opinion piece in USA Today in November urging the Trump administration to leave the regulation unchanged.“Changing the rule after billions of dollars have already been spent means that utilities will have less certainty about federal regulations,” they wrote. “The gains we have made over the past decade to protect children and families from dangerous mercury pollution should not be lost.”
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no lnx pix</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>How a Coal Baron’s Wish List Became President Trump’s To-Do List</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Robert E. Murray, chief executive of the largest coal mining company in the United States, at a Clean Power Plan hearing in Charleston, W.Va., in November.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By Lisa Friedman</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jan. 9, 2018</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">WASHINGTON — President Trump’s first year in office has been a boon for the coal industry, with the Trump administration rolling back regulations on coal-fired power plants and withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate change agreement.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Environmentalists have expressed alarm at the new direction, and have complained that Mr. Trump was following a blueprint from the coal industry. A confidential memo written by the head of the country’s largest coal mining company suggests they might not be wrong.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The memo was written by Robert E. Murray, a longtime Trump supporter who donated $300,000 to the president’s inauguration. In it, Mr. Murray, the head of Murray Energy, presented Mr. Trump with a wish list of environmental rollbacks just weeks after the inauguration.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Murray Energy’s ‘Action Plan’ for the Trump Administration</div><div>
</div><div>Robert E. Murray's wish list of environmental rollbacks reads like a playbook for the Trump administration.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Nearly a year later, the White House and federal agencies have completed or are on track to fulfill most of the 16 detailed requests, even with Monday’s decision by federal regulators to reject a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry to subsidize struggling coal and nuclear plants.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The March 1 memo, which was obtained by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and shared with The New York Times, is addressed to Vice President Mike Pence. The sweeping wish list of regulatory overhauls includes ending regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and ozone and mine safety, as well as cutting the staff of the Environmental Protection Agency “at least in half” and overhauling the Labor Department’s office of mine safety.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“I give President Trump and his administration credit for being bold, being passionate and being correct in addressing a lot of these issues that were on my list here,” Mr. Murray said in an interview Tuesday.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Photographs of portions of a different memo, dated March 23 and addressed to Rick Perry, the secretary of the Department of Energy, were obtained by the magazine In These Times last year. They were taken during a meeting Mr. Murray held on March 29 with Mr. Perry and others at the Energy Department, according to the magazine.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mr. Murray on Tuesday described the memos as very similar.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The March 1 “Action Plan for the Administration of President Donald J. Trump” is aimed, Mr. Murray wrote in the memo, at “getting America’s coal miners back to work.” He also asks the federal government to cut funding for carbon capture and sequestration technology — which Mr. Murray called “a pseudonym for ‘no coal’” — and eliminate a 2009 E.P.A. ruling known as the endangerment finding that was the legal justification for much of the Obama administration’s climate change policy.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“This list was to remain private, a list of things that needed to be done for reliable, low-cost electricity in America. That was my number one goal here, was to give guidance to the administration in an area that I have observed over 60 years,” Mr. Murray said.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Critics say Mr. Murray’s list and the apparent ease with which he was able to get it in front of cabinet officials and others illustrates the open-door access the Trump administration has offered energy and other industries as it moves to redirect and weaken federal regulations.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The astonishing presumption of this list,” Mr. Whitehouse, a Democrat, said. “It’s an extraordinary arrogance of the fossil fuel industry based on the power they wield in Washington, D.C.” He said even though Mr. Murray had bragged about the action plan on a Frontline documentary last year, the Energy Department had declined his requests to immediately release the memo.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The power of the fossil fuel industry around here is so great I think the industry feels they can count on simply not complying with requests,” Mr. Whitehouse said.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Energy Department did not respond to a request to discuss the memos from Mr. Murray.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Trump administration has had an unusually close relationship with Mr. Murray. He and 10 of his miners were invited to watch the president sign an executive order to rollback President Obama’s climate change regulations. He has met with Mr. Perry to discuss the needs of coal producers. His longtime attorney, Andrew Wheeler, is awaiting Senate confirmation to the No. 2 slot at the E.P.A., and David Zatezalo, the nation’s new top mine safety and health regulator and previously the president of a coal mining company, told his hometown paper that Mr. Murray had encouraged him to put his hat in the ring for the job.</div><div>
</div><div>Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer with the firm Bracewell and a deputy administrator of the E.P.A. in the George W. Bush administration, called Mr. Murray’s action plan “an ambitious list.” While interest groups always try to influence policy in a new administration, Mr. Holmstead said Mr. Murray’s status with the administration set him apart.</div><div>
</div><div>“I really don’t think it’s at all unusual that Murray would have this wish list or a set of recommendations. What makes it different is that it’s pretty clear that he has a personal relationship with the president,” Mr. Holmstead said. “It seems like given Mr. Murray’s relationship with the president that he had more of an expectation that these things were going to be accepted or implemented.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One item not on the list yet important to Mr. Murray was an order the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected Monday to subsidize struggling coal and nuclear power plants. Mr. Murray railed against that decision saying it would lead to the decommissioning of coal and nuclear power plants.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Environmental groups have accused Mr. Murray of directly asking Mr. Perry for a proposed rule to reward coal and nuclear power plants for providing “grid resiliency.” The March 1 memo does not mention the grid, though photographs of the cover page of the March 23 document to Mr. Perry obtained by In These Times shows its focus is “a plan for achieving reliable and low cost electricity.”</div></div>=no lnx<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/climate/epa-mercury-emissions.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/climate/epa-mercury-emissions.html</a>E.P.A. to Reconsider Obama-Era Curbs on Mercury Emissions by Power PlantsImageA coal-burning power station in Cheshire, Ohio. The mercury regulation under review chiefly affects pollution from coal-fired plantsThe New York TimesBy Coral DavenportAug. 29, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is reviewing a major Obama-era clean air regulation on the emission of mercury — a pollutant linked with damage to the brain, to the nervous system and to fetal development — with the intent of proposing a replacement rule, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.
The E.P.A.’s review of the 2011 mercury rule comes amid a string of initiatives by the Trump administration to roll back or weaken many environmental regulations put forth by the Obama administration. After reviewing the rule, a process which typically takes 60 to 90 days, the E.P.A. will issue a proposed replacement rule, the agency spokeswoman, Molly Block, said in an email.The mercury regulation under review chiefly affects pollution from coal-fired power plants. The move comes as President Trump has pressed forward on numerous fronts in an attempt to meet his campaign pledge to revive the nation’s coal industry, despite economic analyses showing that the decline in demand for coal is largely driven by market forces rather than regulations.Last week, the E.P.A. proposed a new rule designed to replace the Clean Power Plan, another major Obama-era regulation governing coal-fired power plants. That rule would have restricted coal plants’ emission of a different pollutant: carbon dioxide, one of the chief causes of global warming.At the time the Obama administration put forth the mercury regulations, which took more than 20 years to formulate, E.P.A. officials estimated they would save thousands of lives and return economic and health benefits many times their estimated $9.6 billion annual cost.While owners of coal plants fought the rule in the courts, most have since complied with regulation. Because coal plant owners have already invested in the technology required to lower mercury pollution, some analysts say, it makes little sense to change the regulation now.
“This is reckless chaos for the sake of chaos,” said John Walke, an expert on the Clean Air Act with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “The power sector is fully complying and has appealed to E.P.A. publicly, with labor organizations, to leave the standards alone.”Sept. 19, 2017If the agency rolls back the rules, he said, it raises the prospect that “coal plant owners will face legal challenges to prior utility-commission approvals of pollution-control costs incurred to meet those obligations.”
In 2015, in a victory for opponents of the mercury rule, the Supreme Court concluded that the E.P.A. did not appropriately consider the costs to industry when crafting the rule and directed the E.P.A. to recalculate those costs. The Obama administration then reissued the rule in 2016, and power plants have complied with it since then.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer who represents coal-burning electric utilities and who served in the E.P.A. under former President George W. Bush, said in an email he was “not surprised” that the agency was reviewing the Obama-era finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants for mercury pollution considering that several Supreme Court justices “expressed skepticism about the argument that the Obama E.P.A. made to support its second finding, which the current E.P.A. is now reviewing.”Mr. Holmstead said, however, that he did not expect the Trump administration to try to eliminate a rule on mercury pollution entirely. “It would serve no purpose because the power sector has already spent billions of dollars to bring all their plants into compliance.”
For more climate and environment news, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Regulation On Mercury Is Reviewed By E.P.A.==https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/22/trump-tap-jeff-holmstead-epa-swamp-alertc gibson
as part of President Donald Trump’s effort to “drain the swamp”

directly into his cabinet, a revolving door coal lobbyist is now poised

to take a top position at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the second time in his career.

According to <a href="https://www.axios.com/scoop-jeff-holmstead-expected-to-be-deputy-epa-administrator-2444268983.html" target="blank">Axios</a>, President Trump is expected to appoint <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/jeffrey-r-holmstead/" target="blank">Jeffrey Holmstead</a> to second-in-command at the EPA, where he will be in charge of overseeing the coal companies that he spent the last decade lobbying for.

As a partner at Bracewell LLP, a major K Street lobbying firm, Holmstead’s <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000033591L&year=2016" target="_blank">clients</a> have

been almost exclusively coal mining, utility and railroad companies

since 2007. His mainstay clients include Southern Company, Duke Energy,

Ameren, and Arch Coal.

Of the eighteen total companies that hired Holmstead at Bracewell,

fourteen of them are coal interests. Those fourteen companies <a href="http://polluterwatch.org/jeffrey-holmstead" target="blank">paid Holmstead’s firm over $23.5 million</a> in the time they retained him, according to federal lobbying disclosure forms <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000033591L&year=2016" target="blank">compiled</a> by the Center for Responsive Politics.

That’s not even the kicker. This is the second time that Jeff Holmstead has swapped jobs from coal lobbyist to coal regulator.

TRUMP AND JEFF HOLMSTEAD

After the 2016 election, President Trump and billionaire investor Carol Ichan <a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-03-icahn-epa-candidates-ethanol-scrapped.html" target="blank">interviewed</a> Jeff Holmstead for the top job at EPA. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-pruitt" target="blank">Scott Pruitt</a> got that job, but Mr. Holmstead appears to have carved out a role as second in command.

As Public Citizen’s David Arkush <a href="https://medium.com/@davidarkush/not-normal-coal-industry-lawyer-is-the-moderate-candidate-for-no-2-at-the-trump-pruitt-epa-34cd521f31f6" target="blank">reasons</a>, this may be a gesture to the coal industry that they too have a top-level EPA executive to get on the phone, since Pruitt himself is more <a href="http://polluterwatch.org/blog/edit-blog-entry-scott-pruitt-emails-oil-lobbyists-drafted-his-letters-okla-ag" target="blank">indebted</a> to the oil industry for his political career.

The appointment is very similar to the deal Holmstead struck with the

George W. Bush administration in 2001. By placing him into the #2

position, Holmstead can resume his mild-mannered approach to sabotaging

the EPA and leave the heat for Administrator Pruitt.

THAT OTHER TIME HOLMSTEAD RAN EPA INTO THE GROUND

After lobbying for utilities at the DC law firm Latham and Watkins, Holmstead took a 2nd-tier position in the George W. Bush EPA in 2001. He became Assistant Administrator in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation after a <a href="https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2001/08/02/full" target="blank">bumpy</a> confirmation <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-democratic?ID=0B5C9503-EE7B-4FD0-BB8A-D4DE61A0D361" target="blank">process</a> through the U.S. Senate.

The effect was disastrous. Led by Holmstead, President George W.

Bush’s falsely titled “Clear Skies Initiative” served to replace a

variety of EPA clean air programs with industry-crafted rules that wouldn’t get the job done, but would be nice and cheap for polluters.

Case in point: <a href="http://polluterwatch.com/blog/jeffrey-holmstead-coal-industrys-mercury-lobbyist-report" target="blank">Jeff Holmstead sabotaged the EPA’s efforts</a> to require mercury pollution control technology at each U.S. coal plant. After similar rules were used to reduce mercury emissions from hospitals and medical facilities, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=521322" target="blank">experts</a> widely <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/mercury-emissions.html#.WUlZfBPyuqA" target="_blank">agreed</a> that

this was the best method to stop coal plants from emitting mercury into

the air, where it disperses and settles in local waterways. Once in the

water, mercury can be transformed into its acutely toxic form

methylmercury. Methylmercury is a problem for people who eat

contaminated fish, especially children and pregnant women, as this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcHvniplGg" target="_blank">video</a> by the Colorado School of Public Health illustrates.

Rather than supporting communities poisoned by coal pollution, Jeff

Holmstead created a bureaucratic train wreck that resulted in many years

of regulatory delay for his former (and future) coal industry clients.

Holmstead <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/us/critics-say-epa-won-t-analyze-clean-air-proposals-conflicting-with-president-s.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm" target="blank">censored his scientists</a> at EPA and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/us/critics-say-epa-won-t-analyze-clean-air-proposals-conflicting-with-president-s.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm" target="blank">dismantled</a> a working group charged with finishing the rule to require coal plant operators to install mercury pollution control equipment.

After scrapping the EPA’s almost-final

mercury rule, Holmstead initiated a new effort to regulate mercury

emissions through an “cap and trade” scheme. This less effective

proposal would have lowered average mercury emissions across the

country, but would not require the best technology at each individual

coal plant. In other words, companies could decide which communities to

clean up, and which communities to abandon as de facto sacrifice zones,

as long as they scored an average reduction of emissions.

It took eight full years to reinstate the EPA mercury rule, and only after the DC Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Jeff Holmstead’s substitute cap-and-trade plan for mercury was <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-walke/faq-about-court-decision-overturning-epas-illegal-mercury-rule-power-plants" target="blank">illegal</a>. The EPA finally got the rule back on track in 2011, at the time estimating it would prevent <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120410121557/http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/20111221MATSoverviewfs.pdf" target="blank">4,200-11,000 premature deaths</a> each year.

Top of Form

The big question is this: How many people prematurely died from

mercury-related health problems during the eight years of delay Mr.

Holmstead gifted to the coal industry? The figure has not been credibly

estimated. The implications of Holmstead’s decisions appear dire.

Mercury pollution was only <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/changing-all-the-rules.html" target="_blank">one of many privileges Holmstead extended</a> for coal companies in the Bush EPA.

The so-called Clear Skies Initiative covered several other aspects of

industrial pollution, where Jeff went to bat for coal companies from his

government desk. Holmstead’s actions were repeatedly <a href="https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2001/08/02/full" target="blank">contested</a> by Senators and even the EPA’s own Inspector General, who caught him <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2004/041001" target="blank">dropping enforcement</a> against coal companies that were taken to court for polluting.

In 2005, Holmstead left the EPA, traveled the world for a year, and then became a coal lobbyist again. He joined Bracewell, formerly known as Bracewell &

Giuliani, and registered as a lobbyist for most of the nation’s top

coal mining and utility companies, like Duke Energy, Southern Company,

and Arch Coal. Since then, Holmstead and his colleagues continued to

help companies lobby against clean air, clean water and climate

regulations, often through a front group run out of his office called

the “Electric Reliability Coordinating Council,” whose members overlap

with Holmstead’s coal utility clients.

#RESIST HOLMSTEAD

I have confronted Jeff a few times over the years, challenging what I

see as a profession of thin morality. The last time I met him, we

literally got <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/watch-a-greenpeace-activist-confront-a-coal-lobbyist-as-he-fails-to-ca-1881928461.html" target="blank">stuck in the elevator together</a>. We debated the merits of his coal company shilling as he attempted to catch a cab in the 100+ degree heat of Washington, DC:...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-obama-s-clean-power-plan/wASHINGTON, Feb 9 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by putting on hold federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.The court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan, which also mandates a shift to renewable energy from coal-fired electricity.The highly unusual move by the justices means the regulations will not be in effect while a court battle continues over their legality.The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.As recently as June, the high court ruled 5-4 against the Obama administration over its efforts to regulate mercury and other toxic air pollutants.The states, led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer Texas, and several major business groups in October launched the legal effort seeking to block the Obama administration's plan. The states said the emissions curbs would have a devastating impact on their economies.West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the Supreme Court action on Tuesday as a "historic and unprecedented victory" over the EPA."We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule's immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues," Morrisey added.For Obama, executing his climate change strategy would be a key legacy accomplishment as he nears the end of his time in office in January 2017.House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "The Supreme Court's deeply misguided decision to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan will enable those states that deny climate science to slow progress in reducing the carbon pollution that threatens the health of all Americans."House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy welcomed the Supreme Court's move, saying it "has now stopped this illegitimate abuse of power after 27 states revolted against the president's anti-energy agenda."The court action also means that, with Obama leaving office in January 2017, the next president will have a say on whether to continue defending the regulation.Before that, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied a similar stay request last month, will hear oral arguments in the case on June 2 and decide whether the regulations are lawful."This is certainly a surprise and it suggests the court has serious concerns" about the regulation, said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve School of Law.
DIVIDED COURTThe brief order from the justices said that the regulations would be on hold until the legal challenge is completed. The court's five conservatives all voted to block the rule. The order noted that the four liberals would have denied the application.Under the EPA rule, each state must submit a plan to comply with its emission-reduction target by September 2016 but can also request a two-year extension.The challengers contended that the Obama administration exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act, the key law that addresses air pollution. More than a dozen other states and the National League of Cities, which represents more than 19,000 U.S. cities, filed court papers backing the rule.Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer for coal-powered utilities that challenged the rule, said the court has never before blocked an EPA rule. "To say it's unusual is a bit of an understatement," Holmstead added.Sean Donahue, a lawyer for environmental groups that support the law, said the court action was "surprising and disappointing." He added that "we remain very confident in the legal and factual foundations for EPA's rule."The White House and EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.=E&E<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">An air chief from the George W. Bush administration could become second in command at U.S. EPA, raising objections from conservatives who find him too moderate and worrying environmentalists about the presence of a skilled navigator who could advance a weak climate agenda.<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Jeff Holmstead, a partner at the firm Bracewell LLP, has represented the coal industry and fought the Obama administration's power-sector climate standards.If chosen as deputy administrator, Holmstead could help EPA rescind the Clean Power Plan, and he may have a say in whether the agency replaces it with a far less stringent rule.In the past, he has said EPA would be on safer legal ground if it had focused the rule on coal plant efficiency, rather than trying to achieve much more ambitious shifts away from coal to natural gas and renewable power. Holmstead has also suggested that he accepts the endangerment finding requiring the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That has drawn sharp rebukes from conservative groups.While Holmstead was viewed as a pariah by many on the left during the Bush administration, some conservatives now see him as too moderate and have mounted an effort to keep him out of any job at EPA.<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Republicans on the far right have called him "part of the swamp" and too centrist on environmental issues to fulfill the Trump agenda. One source called Holmstead a "very unpopular choice among hardcore conservatives."<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">That's in part because of his stance that remaining in the Paris climate agreement is "important as a political statement." In an <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-former-air-chiefs-warning-about-the-epa/article/2588534" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-weight: bold;">interview</a> with the <em style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Washington Examiner last year, he advised against a Republican president pulling out of the accord, because "you would be using up a lot of political capital on something that doesn't matter very much."<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">He has expressed support for a Republican pathway toward climate action that focuses on technology, innovation and basic research, "instead of spending billions and billions of dollars on subsidizing things that aren't competitive yet."Green groups disagree with the idea that Holmstead is a centrist.<p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Frank O'Donnell, president of environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said, "It is a sign of how far to the extreme right the Trump administration has gone on environment that Jeff Holmstead would be considered a moderating force."Jeff is not somebody I would characterize as a crazy," O'Donnell added. "I think if he would come in here, his job is going to be to execute what the policies of the administration are. It's not like he's a white knight by any means."Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, said of Holmstead, "I think there are people who think having somebody who actually knows the law is not the worst thing in the world."He's worked at EPA; he understands how to get done what the administration wants to get done," Becker added. "What the administration wants to do is evil, and he will help them do evil more effectively than the people who are crackpots and crazy people."Others on the left say a potential return by Holmstead to EPA is troubling because the former air chief understands the law and the agency so well.Joanne Spalding, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, said Holmstead is "pretty knowledgeable about the Clean Air Act and how to manipulate the statute in ways that can minimize the obligations of polluters to reduce their pollution."John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council said there's "no reason" to think Holmstead would be a moderating force."In the Bush EPA, Mr. Holmstead loyally executed that administration's anti-environmental agenda — and was overturned in court more than any prior or subsequent head of EPA's air program," Walke said.Another longtime environmental lawyer said Holmstead would be "the most effective person to implement the Trump regulatory rollback. The Trump people could not hope for a better person to effectuate their dreams of massive regulatory rollbacks on industry."Axios first reported yesterday that Holmstead is at the top of the list to fill the No. 2 spot at EPA. Scott Segal, who works with Holmstead at Bracewell, has said the news seemed "highly premature." Holmstead is traveling and was not available to comment, although he frequently makes himself available to the media in his role at Bracewell.Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association, is also on the list of potential EPA deputy administrators, according to one source close to EPA.<h3 style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Legal arguments, not ideology</h3>Holmstead has decades of experience working in the private sector and federal government.He was executive counsel for President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993 and later worked under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, leading EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, where he helped write mercury standards for coal plants.He has lobbied for coal and energy industry clients while at Latham & Watkins LLP and Bracewell.Most recently, he has worked with opponents of the Clean Power Plan.EPA is still figuring out how to move forward on the rule. The agency earlier this month sent a rulemaking to rescind the Clean Power Plan to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday met with power company CEOs to discuss "possible next steps for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act," according to utility trade group the Edison Electric Institute.Holmstead has repeatedly argued that EPA stepped outside its authority in setting state carbon standards by looking at how much companies could rely on natural gas and renewables. Pruitt agrees, although it's unclear whether he wants to replace the regulation or just rescind it and await lawsuits from environmental groups."EPA is trying to change the statute," Holmstead <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/wake-court-defeat-opponents-obama-s-climate-rule-tee-seven-more-attacks" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: bold;">said</a> to Science in 2015. "But what the statute has meant, and the way EPA has interpreted it for 40 years, is as the best system for controlling emissions from an individual power plant."In February, he <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-carbon-environment-idUSKCN0VK1AF" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-weight: bold;">told</a> Reuters that EPA used a section of the Clean Air Act that is normally meant for pollution standards at individual sources and said, "We don't think we are limited to that. ... We can order that billions of dollars of business be taken away from coal plants."That's a pretty remarkable assertion of authority," he said.<h3 style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Killing time?</h3>Holmstead's stance was a core argument in court for opponents of the rule in September, and other industry lawyers have said Trump's EPA should not just rescind but replace the regulation."I have said that I think a replacement rule is the smart way to go, for multiple reasons," said Bill Bumpers, an environmental partner who focuses on clean air law at Baker Botts LLP. He added that Holmstead is "a very smart guy with good experience at EPA."Replacing the regulation might make it harder to fight in court. Judges typically give agencies leeway in setting standards.Howard Fox, a lawyer with Earthjustice, argues that the emissions reductions in a replacement would have to be meaningful."They have to point to what this means for reducing emissions," Fox said.Christi Tezak, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners, noted that Holmstead "has firsthand experience managing a rulemaking based on a strict interpretation of the statute's wording in the past — a direction this administration seems to prefer — experience that may be very helpful to Administrator Pruitt in the deputy administrator's seat when working through this and other rulemakings under reconsideration."She explained that while Holmstead was air administrator under George W. Bush, EPA delisted mercury under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and then promulgated a trading program under Section 110 in 2005.The D.C. Circuit vacated that approach, and a replacement program, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, wasn't finalized until December 2011. Compliance was delayed until 2015 and 2016, following more lawsuits.Something similar could happen with the Clean Power Plan.If EPA writes a limited rule and the courts disagree with it, the judicial review process might continue for years. In the meantime, the power sector could see a more lenient standard than the Clean Power Plan.OMGInhofe welcomes Holmstead as possible deputy pickKevin Bogardus, E&E News reporterPublished: Wednesday, June 21, 2017Jeff Holmstead can count on a prominent Republican senator for support on Capitol Hill.
Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell LLP and former U.S. EPA official, is considered to be in the running for deputy administrator but has run into conservative opposition.
Former Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) had kind words for Holmstead yesterday. "I have dealt with him for years. He's excellent. I heartily endorse him," Inhofe told E&E News.
Conservatives have pushed back against the potential nomination, saying the environmental law attorney would gut President Trump's agenda from inside EPA (Greenwire, June 19).
Holmstead has lobbied for coal and utility companies in the past. During President George W. Bush's first term, he served as head of EPA's air office, and before that, he was White House associate counsel for President George H.W. Bush.
Holmstead is not as well-known to many other Republicans lawmakers. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), current EPW chairman, said he was not familiar with the former EPA official.
Andrew Wheeler, now a lobbyist for energy interests at FaegreBD Consulting, has also been under consideration to fill the deputy administrator role at EPA. Wheeler was staff director and chief counsel at EPW when Inhofe led the panel.
"Andrew is excellent. Andrew was with me for 14 years. In fact, he and Jeff are very close friends," Inhofe said. "I have not heard if one is leading. I just know that they're both great, and I support both of them."
Transition sources have told E&E News that several candidates have been under consideration. One other name mentioned has been Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest & Paper Association.
Democrats on the EPW panel said they would keep an open mind on forthcoming EPA nominees until they are announced. Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he had heard of Holmstead.
"I would just reserve judgment — wouldn't say absolutely never — but I would reserve judgment," Carper said.
Asked about Wheeler, Carper said: "We know Andrew. On a personal level, we like him. I've not given any thought to his suitability for that job."
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), another EPW member, said he wasn't familiar with the names mentioned, noting that administration officials had not consulted Democrats.
Regarding his party's potential opposition to whomever Trump picks for the deputy administrator job, Cardin said, "We'll see who they put forward.
"We obviously would like to see someone who has experience and balance on these issues, who believes in the mission of EPA," Cardin said.==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.==<a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/jeffrey-holmstead">http://www.polluterwatch.com/jeffrey-holmstead</a><div class="views-field-field-title-value" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">position Lobbyist</div><div class="views-field-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;">bioJeffrey R. Holmstead is an attorney and lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, DC. Bracewell & Giuliani is a top K Street lobby group representing energy industry clients like Southern Company and Duke Energy.  He isJeff Holmstead began his <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=71114" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">political career</a> as the Associate Counsel to former President George H.W. Bush, moving from government office to . During the Clinton years, Holmstead spent his time as a lobbyist for Latham & Watkins. In 2001, Holmstead was appointed head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation and played a key role in the George W. Bush administration's efforts to roll back clean air and climate change protections.Holmstead left the George W. Bush EPA to join the litigation firm Bracewell & Giuliani as <a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyers_practice.group/attorneys_practice/02cd8f4c-d46a-4b39-b8fd-8334f0251529/Environmental_Strategies.cfm" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">head</a> of the firm's Environmental Strategies Group. serving as a lobbyist representing energy industry and coal utility clients seeking to influence public policy.Holmstead obtaied a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1987 and a B.A. from Brigham Young University in 1984. </div></div><div class="views-field-field-quotes-value" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><div class="polluter-subtitle" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 5px 10px; border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-transform: uppercase;">QUOTES</div><div class="polluter-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 15px 15px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.5;">"The benefits of reducing mercury are very insignificant."-<a href="http://www.eli.org/Seminars/past_event.cfm?eventid=627" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Environmental Law Institute debate</a>, "Resolved: EPA Utility MACT is the right tool at the right time," 25:58, June 7, 2011.</div></div></div><div class="views-field-field-evidence-value" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><div class="polluter-subtitle" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 5px 10px; border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-transform: uppercase;">EVIDENCE</div><div class="polluter-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 15px 15px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.5;"><h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;">Coal Money:</h3>Jeffrey Holmstead’s <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000033591L&year=2011" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">clients</a> are almost exclusively coal-burning electric utility interests. Holmstead's clients have paid Bracewell & Giuliani heavily since Holmstead joined in 2007 and began personally consulting for them (with years as Holmstead clients listed):<ul style="padding: 0px 0px 0.25em 1em; margin: 0px;"><li>Electric Reliability Coordinating Council: $6,147,500 from 2007-2012</li><li>Southern Company: $2,300,000 from 2007-2012</li><li>Progress Energy: $948,000 from 2007-2012</li><li>Duke Energy: $868,000 from 2008-2012</li><li>Ameren: $868,000 from 2008-2012</li><li>Energy Future Holdings: $868,000 from 2008-2012</li><li>Arch Coal: $710,000 from 2009-2012</li><li>Salt River Project: $454,000 from 2008-2012</li><li>DTE Energy: $200,000 from 2011-2012</li><li>Mirant (now GenOn): $270,000 from 2007-2008</li><li>Chase Power: $100,000 in 2012</li><li>Edison Electric Institute: $60,000 in 2007</li></ul>TOTAL: $13,793,500*Southern Co, Duke, Progress and EFH are known members of the <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/meet-coal-lobbyists-who-call-mercury-safeguards-unfortunate" style="text-decoration: none;">Electric Reliability Coordinating Council</a> (ERCC), a coal utility front group run out of<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2000%20K%20Street%20NW%20%C2%AD%20Suite%20500%20Washington%2C%20DC%2020006-1872&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=585&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Bracewell & Giuliani's office</a> by fellow B&G lobbyist Scott Segal. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council doesn't disclose its other members.<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;">Holmstead in George W. Bush EPA:</h3>While Jeff Holmstead has been a polluter ally as a lobbyist, he also worked internally to undermine the Clean Air Act during his time as EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Most notably, Holmstead himself made critical decisions that <a href="http://polluterwatch.com/blog/jeffrey-holmstead-coal-industrys-mercury-lobbyist-report" style="text-decoration: none;">stalled mercury pollution controls on US power plants for eight years</a>.Holmstead worked to weaken the new source review program, which ensures modified or upgraded power plants don’t increase pollution after they are retrofitted, and "<a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_R_Holmstead.cfm" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">oversaw the development</a> of the Bush Administration’s <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clear_Skies_Initiative#Criticisms_of_the_Clear_Skies_Act" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Clear Skies Legislation</a>," which would have allowed for increased power plant pollution.  Holmstead also refused requests from former Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) to reveal internal documentation concerning the Clean Air Act. For these reasons, Holmstead was named “<a href="http://www.cleanairtrust.org/villain.0302.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Clean air villain of the month</a>” in March, 2002 by the Clean Air Trust.<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;">Underwriting legislation for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):</h3>Jeff Holmstead received notable attention in 2010 for working with Sen. Lisa Murkowski and lobbyist Roger R. Martella, Jr. to <a href="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">craft legislation</a> intended to stop EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gasses. Before working on the obstuction legislation with Murkowski and Martella, Holmstead’s employer and two of his major clients (<a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/duke-energy" style="text-decoration: none;">Duke</a> and <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/southern-company" style="text-decoration: none;">Southern Co.</a>) donated over $125,000 to <a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/1876" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Murkowski’s PAC</a>. Other companies that both <a href="http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=murkowski&search=1&type=search" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">donated</a> to Murkowski and<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?lname=Holmstead%2C%20Jeffrey&id=Y00000335910&year=2010" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">paid</a> Holmstead's firm to represent them in the 2009-2010 Congress were Ameren, Progress Energy, Arch Coal, and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Salt_River_Project#Navajo_Plant_Upgrades" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Salt River Project</a>.<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;">'Citizens for the Environment' and Koch Industries:</h3>Jeff Holmstead has <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tgAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0n8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,1374979&dq=environment+citizens-for-a-sound-economy&hl=en" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">ties to Koch Industries</a> through the now-defunct <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/01/koch-pollution-astroturf-2deca/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)</a>, which became astroturf group <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedomworks" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">FreedomWorks</a>as its associated sister group, the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, became <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_For_Prosperity" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Americans for Prosperity</a> and the <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity_Foundation" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Americans for Prosperity Foundation</a>.  Holmstead was an adjunct scholar for Citizens for the Environment (CFE), a spinoff of Citizens for a Sound Economy. The Pittsburg Post-Gazette <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tgAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0n8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,1374979&dq=environment+citizens-for-a-sound-economy&hl=en" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">reported</a> that Citizens for the Environment "labeled most environmental problems -- including acid rain, natural resource depletion and shrinking landfill space -- as myths," and noted that the group had "<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">no citizen membership</a> of its own."  Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded and funded by the Kochs; the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is still a <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/koch-pope-comparison_final.jpg" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">major recipients</a> of Koch dollars, and David Koch is the <a href="http://www.americansforprosperityfoundation.com/foundation/about/directors" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">chairman</a>.</div></div></div><div class="views-field-field-links-resources-url" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><div class="polluter-subtitle" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 5px 10px; border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; text-transform: uppercase;">LINKS AND RESOURCES</div><div class="polluter-body" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 15px 15px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.5;"><div class="field-item field-item-0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_R_Holmstead.cfm" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">Bracewell & Giuliani - Jeffrey Holmstead</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">SourceWatch - Jeffrey R. Holmstead profile</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Holmstead%2C%20Jeffrey&id=Y0000033591L&year=2011" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">OpenSecrets - Jeffrey R. Holmstead lobbyist profile</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20091207%20-%20SmokeScreen%20Final.pdf" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted - and Still Influence - America's Debate Over Climate Change (CREW Report)</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.implu.com/lobbyist/46331" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">Implu - Jeff Holmstead lobbying disclosure forms</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://polluterharmony.com/testimonials.php" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">PolluterHarmony - Jeff Holmstead and Lisa Murkowski</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-6" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.utne.com/2004-06-01/a-dirty-dozen.aspx?page=2" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">Utne Reader - "A Dirty Dozen" by Jim Hightower</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-7" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://polluterwatch.com/blog/jeffrey-holmstead-coal-industrys-mercury-lobbyist-report" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">REPORT: Jeffrey Holmstead - The Coal Industry's Mercury Lobbyist</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-8" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/11/175018/romney-jeff-holmstead/" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">ThinkProgress: Romney Getting Energy Advice From Bush Pollution Lobbyist Jeffrey R. Holmstead</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-9" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQDlxdgIRFg" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">YouTube: Coal Lobbyist Jeff Holmstead Challenged for Protecting Polluters</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-10" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGl3sVwCY4" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">YouTube: Confessions of a Coal Lobbyist - Jeff Holmstead</a></div><div class="field-item field-item-11" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabe-elsner/confessions-of-a-coal-lobbyist_b_2145898.html" a:0="a:0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;" xmlns:a="a">Confessions of a Coal Lobbyists -- Jeff Holmstead: Huffington Post</a></div></div></div></div>===advises romney

As ThinkProgress Green’s Brad Johnson <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/05/11/175018/romney-jeff-holmstead/">noted</a> back in May, Romney has sought energy advice from other polluter lobbyists. One of them, Jeffrey Holmstead, has worked as a registered lobbyist for Duke Energy, Southern Company, and other fossil fuel giants.

Romney’s current energy policy includes polluter friendly ideas like “amending the Clean Air Act to exclude regulation of carbon and opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil production.”

</div>

==

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jeffrey_Holmstead" title="Jeffrey Holmstead">Jeffrey Holmstead</a> - "assistant EPA administrator for air quality. Previously a lobbyist with the firm of Latham & Watkins, Holmstead represented electric utilities trying to fight air pollution restrictions, and he represented the Farm Bureau conglomerate in its fights against pesticide controls. Now inside, he's a key player pushing Bush's Clear Skies initiative, which will allow a 520 percent increase in toxic mercury pollution, a 225 percent jump in carbon dioxide pollution (a global warming contaminant), and a delay in the enforcement of smog and soot pollution until 2016. In charge of writing a new rule to limit mercury poisoning of children by electric power plants, Holmstead embraced a watered-down rule that essentially was written by his old lobbying firm of Latham & Watkins."<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2004-06/articles/11232-1.html">[10]</a></li>

</ul>

---

crew : Jeffrey Holmstead – Jeffrey Holmstead was the assistant administrator for air and radiation at

EPA from 2001 through 2005.81

After leaving the administration in 2005, Mr. Holmstead joined the law firm of Bracewell and

Giuliani, where he heads the Environmental Strategies Group.82 Mr. Holmstead is a registered

lobbyist for Bracewell and Guiliani,83 and has lobbied for Ameren Corporation,84 an electrical

utility company;85 Arch Coal,86 a coal producer;87 and Duke Energy,88 an electrical utility

company.89

---

rfk2:

Mike Leavitt of Ut repl CTW, 1st act waken merc rgs fom coal (40% or airborne

merc) most cd be elim for 1% of plant rev.  lev and Holm scrapped BC reforms; much

reform" came from Latham and Watkins law firm (holm fmr co)  128

tx

RFK: We weren’t surprised by the federal environmental record, because we saw that he’d been the worst environmental governor in America. Under his leadership, Texas became the most polluted state in the country, with the highest levels of air pollution, the highest levels of water pollution, and the highest level of toxic waste and toxic releases. And it was 49th among 50 states in per-capita environmental spending. He was only worsted by Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah, who he has named his EPA administrator and who is now in charge of stewarding all of America’s environmental assets.

MJ.com: How has the situation changed now that Michael O. Leavitt has replaced Christine Todd Whitman at the EPA?

RFK: It went from bad to worse. Leavitt has giant social skills and charm, but his record is one of the most anti-environmental of any governor except for George W. Bush. The first thing that he did when he came into office was to dismantle President Clinton’s mercury rule. The same utilities that are discharging ozone and particulates, those same coal-burning power plants are also discharging huge amounts of mercury into our air, and the mercury ends up in the fish. Just a few weeks ago, the EPA announced its decision that, as a result of that, all fish in 19 states are now unsafe to eat because of mercury contamination. At least some of the fish in 48 states are now unsafe to eat. In fact, the only two states where they’re “safe” are Alaska and Wyoming, where the Republican-controlled legislatures refused to allocate the funds for their agencies to test the fish.

Today, one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental retardation and heart, liver and kidney disease. My own levels of mercury are so high -- I had them tested recently -- that a woman with the same levels would have a child with cognitive impairment. The Clinton administration had classified mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which triggered a requirement that those utilities remove 90 percent of the mercury within three and a half years. It would have cost less than 1 percent of plant revenue, and the great thing about it is that it works; we now know that when the utilities stop discharging mercury, that the fish downstream clean up almost immediately.

But this is an industry that gave all that money, over $100 million, to the president. A few months ago, the Bush administration announced that it was scrapping the Clinton-era regulations and substituting instead regulations that were written by utility lawyers, from the law firm of Latham and Watkins. Under the new rules, the utilities will effectively never have to clean up their mercury. And the chief lobbyist for Latham and Watkins was Jeffrey Holmstead, who is now the head of the air division of EPA. This is an example of how corporations have infiltrated our government and are dismantling it in order to privatize the commons.

==

---

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Holmstead" title="Jeffrey Holmstead">Jeffrey Holmstead</a> - "assistant EPA administrator for air quality. Previously a lobbyist with the firm of Latham & Watkins, Holmstead represented electric utilities trying to fight air pollution restrictions, and he represented the Farm Bureau conglomerate in its fights against pesticide controls. Now inside, he's a key player pushing Bush's Clear Skies initiative, which will allow a 520 percent increase in toxic mercury pollution, a 225 percent jump in carbon dioxide pollution (a global warming contaminant), and a delay in the enforcement of smog and soot pollution until 2016. In charge of writing a new rule to limit mercury poisoning of children by electric power plants, Holmstead embraced a watered-down rule that essentially was written by his old lobbying firm of Latham & Watkins."<a href="http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2004-06/articles/11232-1.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2004-06/articles/11232-1.html" rel="nofollow">[10]</a></li>

</ul>

----

<h1><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/11/175018/romney-jeff-holmstead/">Romney Getting Energy Advice From Bush Pollution Lobbyist Jeffrey R. Holmstead</a></h1>

By Brad Johnson on May 11, 2011 at 10:48 am

<a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/fox-20090417-holmstead.jpg"><img src="/8eba38db-9e3d-59f5-8703-2e30c9454294.jpg"/></a>Politico reports that Republican presidential prospect Mitt Romney is “seeking counsel” from <a href="http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/0511/morningenergy244.html">Jeffrey R. Holmstead</a>, a top industry lobbyist who worked to corrupt air pollution laws at the Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration:

The mating dance has begun as top Republican presidential candidates try to snare seasoned energy exports for their campaign. Mitt Romney is off to a strong start, rubbing elbows with Mike Leavitt – a former Utah governor who led the EPA during the Bush administration – and seeking counsel from Jeff Holmstead, a fellow Mormon and former top Bush EPA air pollution chief who now works on K Street with Bracewell & Giuliani.

</blockquote>

Holmstead has long been a top pollution lawyer for the Bush family, following in the footsteps of his mentor, C. Boyden Gray:

1989: Holmstead Joins Bush I Administration. In 1989, George H.W. Bush’s counsel C. Boyden Gray hired Holmstead, who had been clerking for Douglas Ginsberg, a Reagan-era anti-regulation official and judge. As Associate Counsel to the White House, Holmstead was involved in the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

1993: During Clinton Years, Holmstead Becomes Top Pollution Lawyer. With Clinton’s inauguration in 1993, Holmstead joined the “environmental” practice of corporate law firm Latham & Watkins. Clients included the Chemical Manufacturers Association, fighting pesticide regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. Holmstead also represented the <a href="http://projects.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=312&sid=200">Alliance for Constructive Air Policy</a>, a coal-fired utility front group that coordinated state-level efforts to <a href="http://www.wvhighlands.org/VoicePast/VoiceJul98/Roanoke.Art.July98.htm">water down smog standards</a>.

Holmstead Joins Koch Front Group. While at Lathan & Watkins, Holmstead became an <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tgAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0n8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,1374979&dq=environment+citizens-for-a-sound-economy&hl=en">adjunct scholar</a> for the Citizens for the Environment, a spin-off of Koch Industries’ Citizens for a Sound Economy. CSE was founded in 1984 by the Koch brothers. C. Boyden Gray, Holmstead’s former boss, became chairman of CSE in 1993.

2001: Bush II Appoints Holmstead To Head EPA Clean Air Program. As Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, Holmstead drafted a mercury rule based on verbatim language from memos by his former firm Latham & Watkins. Holmstead’s mercury rule was thrown out by the courts. [Washington Post, <a href="http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20040902173729-31324.pdf">1/31/04</a>]

2007: During Obama Years, Holmstead Returns As Top Pollution Lawyer. Since 2007, Holmstead <a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_Holmstead.cfm">heads</a> the environmental strategies division at Bracewell & Guiliani, and is a lobbyist for Southern Company, Duke Energy, Arch Coal, and other industrial polluters. Holmstead <a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/blog/entry/lobbyists-played-major-role-in-sen.-murkowskis-proposal/">advised</a> Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) for her bill to block EPA authority to reduce greenhouse pollution. [Lobbying Disclosure Database]

</blockquote>

Although Koch has said he won’t publicly support any candidate until <a href="http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-03/gossip/29521515_1_koch-industries-prostate-cancer-celebrity-apprentice-host">next year</a>, Romney is on the petrochemical billionaire’s inside track: Romney held a “meet and greet” at <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/0810/Romney_raises_in_the_Hamptons_.html">David Koch’s Hamptons estate</a> last summer, and participated in a <a href="http://elections.americablog.com/2011/04/romneys-wants-to-hang-obama.html">Koch-sponsored summit</a> this April.

(H/T: <a href="http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2011/05/romney-and-pollution-deja-vu.html">Frank O’Donnell)</a>

</div>

===

rfk2:

EPA fisher and horinko lobby/consult to Koch; Holmstead (lobbyist and WU cfront

gp)

<div>

Jeff Holmstead EPA office of air and radiation, then pal got gig at Baker and Hostetler, So Co lobby 124 after gpa, hold #2 took job at Bracewell and

Paterson, houston co lobby for So co on NSR .  Sen Edwards called for holm resig supress sci and lying 125. Oct 03 GAO rep said he's lied that elim NSR wd

not affect ongpoing invest and proec of corps that broke rules incl So co. but he had talked to epa about it (3 quit)

</div>

Jeffrey R. Holmstead heads up the "Environmental Strategies Group" (ESG) at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bracewell%26_Giuliani" title="Bracewell & Giuliani">Bracewell & Giuliani</a>, a U.S. lobbying firm. A biogrpahicl note states that "the ESG is a multi-disciplinary group that includes environmental and energy attorneys, public policy advocates, and strategic communications experts – most of whom have had high-level government experience. Under Mr. Holmstead's leadership, they work together on daily basis to advise and defend companies and business groups confronting major environmental and energy-development challenges, both domestically and globally."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_note-Bio-0" title="">[1]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#Background">1 Background</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#Amending_a_Bill">2 Amending a Bill</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#Education">2.1 Education</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#Contact">3 Contact</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#References">4 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#Related_SourceWatch_resources">5 Related SourceWatch resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#External_resources">6 External resources</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Background</h2>

He was a former assistant administrator for air and radiation at the United States <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="Environmental Protection Agency" class="mw-redirect">Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA).<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_note-Bio-0" title="">[1]</a> He also oversaw the development of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration" title="Bush administration">Bush administration</a>'s "Clear Skies Legislation" and key parts of its "Global Climate Change Initiative."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a>

Previously a lobbyist with the firm of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Latham%26_Watkins" title="Latham & Watkins">Latham & Watkins</a>, Holmstead represented electric utilities trying to fight air pollution restrictions, and he represented the Farm Bureau conglomerate in its fights against pesticide controls. He was a key player in pushing Bush's Clear Skies initiative, which allowed a 520 percent increase in toxic mercury pollution, a 225 percent jump in carbon dioxide pollution (a global warming contaminant), and a delay in the enforcement of smog and soot pollution until 2016. In charge of writing a new rule to limit mercury poisoning of children by electric power plants, Holmstead embraced a watered-down rule that essentially was written by his old lobbying firm of Latham & Watkins.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

<h2>Amending a Bill</h2>

In January 2010 Washington Post journalist, Juliet Eilperin, reported that Holmstead and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_R.Martella" title="Roger R. Martella">Roger R. Martella</a>, Jr., "helped craft" the original version of an amendment proposed by Republican Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=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 confirmed that in Sptember 2009 he worked with Murkowski's staff on the wording of the amendment. Holmstead's client list on climate issues includes <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Southern_Company" title="Southern Company">Southern Company</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy" title="Duke Energy">Duke Energy</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_Energy" title="Progress Energy">Progress Energy</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Electric_Reliability_Coordinating_Council&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (page does not exist)">Electric Reliability Coordinating Council</a> on climate matters.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

<h3>Education</h3>

<ul>

<li>J.D., Yale Law School, 1987

</li>

<li>B.A., summa cum laude, Brigham Young University, 1984

</li>

<li>Bar Admissions: District of Columbia, Pennsylvania<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a>

</li>

</ul>

<h2>Contact</h2>

Jeffrey R. Holmstead

Bracewell & Giuliani

2000 K Street NW

Suite 500

Washington, District of Columbia, 20006-1872

Tel: 202.828.5800

Fax: 202.223.1225

Email: jeff.holmsteadATbgllp.com (replace the "AT" with "@")

<h2>References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-Bio-0">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_ref-Bio_0-0" title="">1.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead#cite_ref-Bio_0-1" title="">1.1</a> <a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_R_Holmstead.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_R_Holmstead.cfm" rel="nofollow">"People: Jeffrey R. Holmstead"</a>, Bracewell & Giuliani website, accessed January 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> Senator Tom Carper, <a href="http://carper.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=207311" class="external text" title="http://carper.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=207311" rel="nofollow">"EPA Issues Rosier 'Clear Skies' Analysis, Based on New Model"</a>, Media Release, July 2, 2003.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> Jim Hightower, <a href="http://www.utne.com/2004-06-01/a-dirty-dozen.aspx" class="external text" title="http://www.utne.com/2004-06-01/a-dirty-dozen.aspx" rel="nofollow">A Dirty Dozen: Sub-cabinet policy operatives actually run government</a>, Utne Reader, June, 2004.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> Juliet Eilperin, <a href="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html" class="external text" title="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html" rel="nofollow">"Murkowski and her lobbyist allies"</a>, Post Carbon (Washington Post blog), January 11, 2010.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead#cite_ref-4" title="">↑</a> Bracewell & Giuliani <a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_Holmstead.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_Holmstead.cfm" rel="nofollow">People: Jeffrey R. Holmstead</a>, web page accessed November 19, 2008</li>

</ol>

<h2>Related SourceWatch resources</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bracewell_%26_Giuliani" title="Bracewell & Giuliani">Bracewell & Giuliani</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door" title="Government-industry revolving door">Government-industry revolving door</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>External resources</h2>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Coal_Issues" title="Category:Coal Issues">Coal Issues</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Energy" title="Category:Energy">Energy</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Climate_change" title="Category:Climate change">Climate change</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Coal_lobby" title="Category:Coal lobby">Coal lobby</a>

---

<a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/polluter-info/150">http://www.polluterwatch.com/polluter-info/150</a>

<div class="views-field-field-title-value">position Lobbyist</div>

<div class="field-content">bio

Jeffrey Holmstead is a lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani, a top K Street lobby group representing energy industry clients like Southern Company and Duke Energy.  He is head of the firm's <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyers_practice.group/attorneys_practice/02cd8f4c-d46a-4b39-b8fd-8334f0251529/Environmental_Strategies.cfm">Environmental Strategies Group</a>.

Jeff Holmstead began his <a target="_blank" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=71114">political career</a> as the Associate Counsel to former President George H.W. Bush. During the Clinton years, Holmstead spent his time as a lobbyist for Latham & Watkins. In 2001, Holmstead was appointed head of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and played a key role in the Bush administration's efforts to roll back clean air protections. Holmstead brought this "expertise" to Bracewell & Giuliani where he is currently a lobbyist representing energy industry clients, mostly in the coal utility sector.

</div>

<div class="polluter-subtitle">Evidence</div>

<h3>Coal Money:</h3>

Jeffrey Holmstead’s <a target="_blank" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000033591L&year=2011">clients</a> are almost exclusively coal-burning electric utility interests. Holmstead's clients have paid B&G heavily since Holmstead joined in 2007 and began personally consulting for them (with years as Holmstead clients listed):

<ul>

<li>Electric Reliability Coordinating Council: $4,857,500 from 2007-2011</li>

<li>Southern Company*: $1,820,000 from 2007-2011</li>

<li>Progress Energy*: $778,000 from 2007-2011</li>

<li>Duke Energy*: $668,000 from 2008-2011</li>

<li>Ameren: $668,000 from 2008-2011</li>

<li>Energy Future Holdings*: $668,000 from 2008-2011</li>

<li>Salt River Project: $414,000 from 2008-2011</li>

<li>DTE Energy: $80,000 in 2011</li>

<li>Mirant (now GenOn): $270,000 from 2007-2008</li>

<li>Edison Electric Institute: $60,000 in 2007</li>

</ul>

TOTAL: $10,753,500

*Southern Co, Duke, Progress and EFH are known members of the <a target="blank" href="http://www.electricreliability.org/">Electric Reliability Coordinating Council</a> (ERCC), a coal utility front group run out of <a target="blank" href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2000%20K%20Street%20NW%20%C2%AD%20Suite%20500%20Washington%2C%20DC%2020006-1872&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=585&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il">Bracewell & Giuliani's office</a> by fellow B&G lobbyist Scott Segal. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council doesn't disclose its other members.

<h3>Holmstead in George W. Bush EPA:</h3>

While Jeff Holmstead has been a polluter ally as a lobbyist, he also worked internally to undermine the Clean Air Act during his time as EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Holmstead worked to weaken the new source review program, which ensures modified or upgraded power plants don’t increase pollution after they are retrofitted, and "<a target="blank" href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_R_Holmstead.cfm">oversaw the development</a> of the Bush Administration’s <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clear_Skies_Initiative#Criticisms_of_the_Clear_Skies_Act">Clear Skies Legislation</a>," which would have allowed for increased power plant pollution.  Holmstead also refused requests from former Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) to reveal internal documentation concerning the Clean Air Act. For these reasons, Holmstead was named “<a target="_blank" href="http://www.cleanairtrust.org/villain.0302.html">Clean air villain of the month</a>” in March, 2002 by the Clean Air Trust.

<h3>Underwriting legislation for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):</h3>

Jeff Holmstead received notable attention in 2010 for working with Sen. Lisa Murkowski and lobbyist Roger R. Martella, Jr. to <a target="blank" href="http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html">craft legislation</a> intended to stop EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gasses. Before working on the obstuction legislation with Murkowski and Martella, Holmstead’s employer and two of his major clients (<a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/duke-energy">Duke</a> and <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/southern-company">Southern Co.</a>) donated over $125,000 to <a target="blank" href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/1876">Murkowski’s PAC</a>. Other companies that both <a target="blank" href="http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=murkowski&search=1&type=search">donated</a> to Murkowski and <a target="blank" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?lname=Holmstead%2C%20Jeffrey&id=Y00000335910&year=2010">paid</a> Holmstead's firm to represent them in the 2009-2010 Congress were Ameren, Progress Energy, Arch Coal, and the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Salt_River_Project#Navajo_Plant_Upgrades">Salt River Project</a>.

<h3>'Citizens for the Environment' and Koch Industries:</h3>

Jeff Holmstead has <a target="blank" href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tgAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0n8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,1374979&dq=environment+citizens-for-a-sound-economy&hl=en">ties to Koch Industries</a> through the now-defunct <a target="blank" href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/01/koch-pollution-astroturf-2deca/">Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)</a>, which became astroturf group <a target="blank" href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedomworks">FreedomWorks</a> as its associated sister group, the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, became <a target="blank" href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_For_Prosperity">Americans for Prosperity</a> and the <a target="blank" href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity_Foundation">Americans for Prosperity Foundation</a>.  Holmstead was an adjunct scholar for Citizens for the Environment (CFE), a spinoff of Citizens for a Sound Economy. The Pittsburg Post-Gazette <a target="blank" href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tgAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0n8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2965,1374979&dq=environment+citizens-for-a-sound-economy&hl=en">reported</a> that Citizens for the Environment "labeled most environmental problems -- including acid rain, natural resource depletion and shrinking landfill space -- as myths," and noted that the group had "<a target="blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all">no citizen membership</a> of its own."  Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded and funded by the Kochs; the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is still a <a target="blank" href="http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/koch-pope-comparison_final.jpg">major recipients</a> of Koch dollars, and David Koch is the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.americansforprosperityfoundation.com/foundation/about/directors">chairman</a>.

</div>

<div class="polluter-subtitle">Links and Resources</div>

<div class="field-item field-item-0"><a href="http://www.bracewellgiuliani.com/index.cfm/fa/lawyer.profile/attorney/d3fd15cc-213f-4871-84f1-766070685b75/Jeffrey_R_Holmstead.cfm" target="_blank">Bracewell & Giuliani - Jeffrey Holmstead</a></div>

<div class="field-item field-item-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R.Holmstead" target="blank">SourceWatch - Jeffrey R. Holmstead profile</a></div>

<div class="field-item field-item-2"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Holmstead%2C%20Jeffrey&id=Y0000033591L&year=2011" target="_blank">OpenSecrets - Jeffrey R. Holmstead lobbyist profile</a></div>

<div class="field-item field-item-3"><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20091207%20-%20SmokeScreen%20Final.pdf" target="_blank">Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted - and Still Influence - America's Debate Over Climate Change (CREW Report)</a></div>

<div class="field-item field-item-4"><a href="http://www.implu.com/lobbyist/46331" target="_blank">Implu - Jeff Holmstead lobbying disclosure forms</a></div>

<div class="field-item field-item-5"><a href="http://polluterharmony.com/testimonials.php" target="_blank">PolluterHarmony - Jeff Holmstead and Lisa Murkowski</a></div>

<div class="field-item field-item-6"><a href="http://www.utne.com/2004-06-01/a-dirty-dozen.aspx?page=2" target="_blank">Utne Reader - "A Dirty Dozen" by Jim Hightower</a></div>

</div>

<div class="polluter-subtitle">Quotes</div>

"The benefits of reducing mercury are very insignificant."

-<a target="_blank" href="http://www.eli.org/Seminars/past_event.cfm?eventid=627">Environmental Law Institute debate</a>, "Resolved: EPA Utility MACT is the right tool at the right time," 25:58, June 7, 2011.

</div>

“In the 1980s, lobbyists told us that the proposed Clean Air Act Amendments would cause, quote, ‘a quiet death for businesses across the country,’” <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/12a744ff56dbff8585257590004750b6/7769a6b1f0a5bc9a8525779e005ade13%21OpenDocument" target="_blank">reported EPA administrator Jackson last year</a>. “Instead, the US economy grew by 64 percent even as the implementation of Clean Air Act Amendments cut acid rain pollution in half.”

The <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-07-clean-air-act-cheaper-more-effective-than-industry-predicts/" target="_blank">cost projections for the first phase of the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program were $2.4 to $5 billion a year</a>. In fact, studies show it only ended up costing $836 million (not billion) a year. Quite the deal in exchange for precipitation that doesn’t, for example, melt the faces off statues of important historical figures.

Yet, industry trade groups such as the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, the National Mining Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers have already issued statements forecasting job losses and an impending rise in energy prices (EPA estimates them to be $3 to $4 a month after 2015).

“In addition, electric system reliability could be compromised by coal retirements and new environmental construction projects caused by this proposed rule and other EPA regulations,” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/earth/17epa.html?r=1&pagewanted=all" target="blank">said Aric Newhouse, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Manufacturers</a>. “Stringent, unrealistic regulations such as these will curb the recent economic growth we have seen.”

Luckily for industry, they have plenty of buddies in Congress, who have <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/bill-block-epa-climate-regulations-moves-forward-congress">already been assaulting the EPA on various fronts</a> and could possibly take steps to block the EPA in this area as well.

“We do know many members of Congress are concerned about the economic impact of these rules, and more time will help mitigate the economic impact of making additional emission reductions,” <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204583816132832.html" target="_blank">a spokeswoman from the utility American Electric Power told the Wall Street Journal</a>.

Industry favorite, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204583816132832.html" target="_blank">Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has already assured industrial polluters</a> that he’s on their side, stating, “EPA continues to propose and promulgate rules at a breakneck pace without a complete and accurate understanding of their impacts on consumers, jobs and small businesses.”

<a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f%21OpenDocument" target="_blank">Impacts like these</a>?

<div style=" border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">For every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, the American public and American businesses will see up to $13 in health and economic benefits. The total health and economic benefits of this standard are estimated to be as much as $140 billion annually.</div>

Electric utilities would have three to four years to come into compliance under the new standards, and <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f%21OpenDocument" target="_blank">according to the EPA</a>, “[M]ore than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy the widely available pollution-control technologies that allow them to meet these important standards.”

Therefore, despite the typical industry doom-saying, these Clean Air Act regulations will likely cost less than predicted, stimulate American innovation, and save lives. And all the children and tuna that normally get their mercury from coal pollution will be saying what a bargain the Clean Air Act has turned out to be.

</div>

</div>

Holmstead, J esq

Attachments