Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

=
Numerous rulings by a former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) favored energy companies his lobbyist wife worked for at the time, a DeSmog investigation can reveal.Philip Moeller left FERC in late 2015 after nearly ten years on the Commission.Throughout his entire tenure, Moeller’s <a href="http://www.pillsburylaw.com/elizabeth-moeller" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">wife</a>, Elizabeth Moeller, was employed as a lawyer and lobbyist for the WashingtonDC-based firm Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman LLP (Pillsbury Winthrop).According to internal FERC documents obtained by DeSmog, the Commission’s counsel repeatedly authorized Moeller to rule on matters concerning companies represented by his wife or others at Pillsbury Winthrop.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Elizabeth Moeller’s Timely Move to Pillsbury Winthrop</h3>A month before Moeller was nominated by President George W. Bush to FERC in March 2006, Elizabeth Moeller, a veteran Capitol Hill lobbyist, moved from the firm of Squire Patton to Pillsbury Winthrop.One of her first clients at the new firm was Puget Sound Energy (PSE), a FERC-regulated utility providing electricity and gas to more than a million costumers in the Northwest.According to congressional disclosure documents, Elizabeth Moeller had consistently <a href="http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=dec40556-e766-4873-b958-211989ea3f7a&filingTypeID=1" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">lobbied</a> for PSE from April 2006 to April 2014 on various issues relating to climate change, energy policy, and taxation. During the same time span, Commisioner Moeller sat on many FERC rulings involving PSE, where he ruled in favor of the company.In 2007, Moeller and the Commission approved the upgrade and expansion of a PSE storage facility.A year later, they approved PSE’s merger with a consortium led by the investment firm Macquarie.Soon after, Moeller was involved in approving PSE’s purchase of Sumas Pipeline Company’s natural gas import facility in Whatcom County, Washington.In 2011, FERC approved PSE’s rate increase. Two years later, Moeller approved PSE’s new service agreements with Morgan Stanley Capital.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">FERC Allows Moeller to Sit on Rulings</h3>When first nominated to FERC, Moeller disclosed to the Commission the conflict relating to his wife’s work.In a letter to FERC’s Designated Agency Ethics Official, Moeller stated he would “not participate personally and substantially, if confirmed, in any particular matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on my spouse’s employment interest in Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.”Office of Government Ethics <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/ethics.asp" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">rules</a> strictly forbid public officials from working on matters where they have a personal financial stake, unless authorized in writing by the agency’s Ethics Official. img]Excerpt from Commissioner Moeller disclosure statement, March 2006Internal FERC memoranda show the Commission’s legal staff repeatedly authorized Moeller to participate in rulings involving companies represented by Pillsbury Winthrop.In February 2007, only months after his appointment to FERC, Moeller asked the Commission's Ethics Official for a blanket waiver to participate in matters involving companies represented by his wife or Pillsbury Winthrop. The waiver was on the condition that neither Elizabeth Moeller or Pillsbury Winthrop was participating directly in the issue before the commission.The official granted the waiver, arguing “[I] believe it is highly unlikely your Commission decisions in matters that involve your wife’s or Pillsbury’s clients, when represented by other counsel, would have any affect on the financial interests of either your wife or of Pillsbury.”The Ethics Official also cited Moeller’s unique role in the regulatory process. “As a result, your role cannot be performed by another Commission employee and you should not be recused unnecessarily.”   Soon after, in early 2008, Moeller asked FERC’s counsel to participate in several rulings concerning PSE.Even though Elizabeth Moeller was already lobbying for PSE at the time, FERC allowed him to participate after verifying that neither she nor her firm was directly participating in the specific matters before the Commission concerning PSE.FERC’s counsel wrote, “in my view, these matters will not have any direct and predictable effect on the Moeller’s finances.”In one of the rulings concerning PSE, Moeller stated: “Transparency in the Commission's process is necessary in light of our significant enforcement authority.”In late 2009 Moeller asked FERC for a waiver to participate in pending settlement rulings relating to California’s energy crisis of 2000-2001, where one of the parties in the matter, Chevron, was being represented by Pillsbury Winthrop.Oddly, at the time Moeller told FERC’s counsel he was unaware his wife had become an equity partner at Pillsbury Winthrop 11 months earlier. This means Elizabeth Moeller automatically benefited financially with every increase in her firm’s total income.Still, FERC granted him the waiver to participate in the settlements, saying: “Mrs. Moeller stands to benefit only in an indirect and attenuated way from the resolution of the Settlements.”The Commission also cited the need to maintain a quorum of commissioners in such matters. =
<h3>

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman</h3>

Pilsbury, like the others, told its clients that although Exxon has

come first in this investigation, there's a chance they could fall next

in line. Not only that, the firm recommended deferring the legal costs

of such an investigation to their insurance companies.

“Although the details of future enforcement activity are not clear, it

is reasonable to expect increasing government scrutiny of climate

change-related disclosures,” wrote the firm to its clients.

“Our White Collar and Insurance Recovery and Advisory attorneys routinely evaluate CIDs

and subpoenas and help clients not only to develop strategies to

respond, but to maximize the potential that our clients’ insurance

companies pay for that response. In most cases, we are able to review

and evaluate specific situations for relatively low cost or fixed fee

arrangements, which enable us to assist our clients to proactively

improve our clients’ position and minimize their risk.”

The <a target="blank" href="http://www.law360.com/firms/pillsbury-winthrop/clients">firm's client list</a> has included the likes of Chevron, British American Tobacco, Schlumberger, as well as <a target="blank" href="http://www.pillsburylaw.com/litigation">Duke Energy</a>.

<h3>

Contemplating Similar Fate?</h3>
==