E&E Energy & Environ Legal Inst

this is really a duplicate disambiguation link: see horner

and ATI, and schnare, but also new 8/15

see horner 3

when did FME legal clinic at GMU close? morphed to e&E?

also e&e tag

capt 816 e&e

see green black death ~ Pope Francis

see schnare, horner and richardson

see milloy 2

partic holocaust

sci suppr

---

e nad ethe good one

Meet the ‘dead industrialists’ funding climate denialism

:{By Scott Waldman | 06/26/2020

Some of the most prolific funders of today’s climate science denial groups died decades before the general public knew climate change was transforming the planet.

Sarah Mellon Scaife and Daniel C. Searle. University of Pittsburgh/Historic Pittsburgh (Scaife); Searle Freedom Trust

Some of the most prolific funders of today’s climate science denial groups died decades before the general public knew climate change was transforming the planet.

While much of the attention on opposition to mainstream climate science has focused in recent years on funding from fossil fuel companies, there’s growing support for foes of carbon regulation from conservative foundations that are not widely known.

Foundations formed by now-dead industrialists have been instrumental in promoting rollbacks of regulations that protect the public from deadly air pollution and spreading misinformation around climate science.

Fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, the foundations have supported groups that worked with the Trump White House to roll back vehicle emissions standards and to ease restrictions on power plant pollution and water protections, public tax filings show. They have quietly funded presidential advisers who worked to conduct a hostile White House review of climate science and to restrict EPA’s use of scientific research when crafting public health protections.

Among the foundations, which operate independently but bankroll many of the same groups, are the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who studies and tracks climate denial funding, said such foundations have been quietly shaping public life for decades. They offer a way, he said, for "dead industrialists" to transfer economic power into cultural and political power that can last in perpetuity. The power of such foundations lies in their ability to operate for generations without any check on their power, he said.

"These foundations are totally unaccountable to anybody," he said. "A foundation can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants regardless of the consequences. Foundations have undemocratic and plutocratic power."

None of the foundations responded to requests for comment.

The foundations fuel more than just climate policy battles. They also support media organizations that promote misleading climate information and create confusion around climate science. That includes the conservative Daily Caller News Foundation as well as the Prager University Foundation.

The Daily Caller News Foundation provides articles for the Daily Caller, the conservative website founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. A Prager University video series has featured climate deniers saying that global warming concerns are overblown and that NASA, NOAA and the world’s major science agencies are wrong.

They have pumped millions of dollars into groups that have worked closely with the Trump administration and Congress to weaken climate policy and create confusion around climate science, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), CO2 Coalition, Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and Texas Public Policy Foundation.

And the foundations have been a source of "baseload" funding for organizations that have battled the government for the last 40 years, said Kert Davies, director of the nonprofit Climate Investigations Center.

Even before fossil fuel companies and the Koch brothers began pumping money into organizations that oppose climate regulations, the foundations were quietly supporting such work, he said. And as the fossil fuel industry faces increasing scrutiny over its role in climate misinformation and has backed away from some public funding, the foundations have continued their support, Davies noted.

"They don’t have any material interest in fossil fuels, but they are fundamentalists about hating the government, hating regulation and trying to stop any progress on things like climate change because they see it as almost a step toward communism, it’s almost that stark," he said.

To be sure, not all foundations linked to dead industrialists oppose climate science. The fortune of John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil is now funding climate action. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spends more than $10 million annually supporting climate causes and funding groups that promote regulation of fossil fuel.

3 big donors

One of the largest donors to anti-climate policy causes is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has spent millions of dollars annually on groups that try to sow doubt about climate change and that work to weaken climate regulations.

Public tax filings show that the Wisconsin-based foundation has assets of about $1 billion and was named for two brothers — Lynde, who died in 1942, and Harry, a member of the far-right John Birch Society, who died in 1965. The family made its fortune in electronic controls.

The foundation was expanded into a conservative powerhouse in 1985, when a sale of the family company expanded the foundation’s assets to $290 million.

In recent years, the foundation has pumped millions of dollars into groups that worked closely with the Trump White House to roll back most of the Obama administration’s climate policy; to increase the voice of industry researchers in order to diminish air pollution regulations; and to steer federal agencies such as the Interior Department, EPA and the Department of Energy toward the interests of fossil fuel companies.

Last year alone, the Bradley Foundation spent more than $2 million funding CEI, the Cato Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council. Former employees of those groups have served in senior positions at the White House, Interior, DOE and EPA, and on President Trump’s transition teams for those agencies.

Millions of dollars to the same groups has also flowed from the Searle Freedom Trust, public tax filings show. The trust was founded by Daniel C. Searle, who died in 2007 and was a fourth-generation CEO of a family pharmaceutical company that was sold to Monsanto.

In 2018 alone, tax filings show, the Searle trust gave more than $2 million to groups that worked with the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations, including the CO2 Coalition, CEI, Cato and the Heritage Foundation.

In addition to policy support, the foundation funds public outreach for climate denialism. In 2018 alone, it spent more than $300,000 on groups that publish and promote climate misinformation, including the Daily Caller News Foundation and the Prager University Foundation, tax filings show.

The work of the Bradley Foundation and Searle trust is complemented by funding from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is named after Sarah Mellon Scaife, an heiress to the fortune of her father, Richard Mellon, a banker and industrialist.

Scaife, who died in 1965, focused her support on funding for hospitals, disability and poverty issues, and environmental causes. Her money was even used to fund the University of Pittsburgh laboratory where the polio vaccine was developed by Dr. Jonas Salk in the early 1950s.

After Scaife’s death, her son, Richard Mellon Scaife, turned the foundation into a powerhouse for conservative issues, spending tens of millions of dollars on the Heritage Foundation alone before his death in 2014. Scaife steered the family’s fortune toward conservative causes so thoroughly that Hillary Clinton once pinpointed him as the figurehead of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

The Sarah Scaife Foundation now funnels millions to groups that oppose environmental regulations and that attack climate science. That includes more than $3 million in its most recent filing, including to Cato, CEI, the CO2 Coalition, FreedomWorks, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, according to tax filings.

---

off bs 7 24

forest green logo w scales

FacebookXEmailRss

E&E Legal Logo

Home

Who We Are

Education

Legal

Policy

Investigations

Donate

Contact

MILLOY: SCARE POLLUTION

book

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that outdoor air kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. EPA has used this claim to: wreck the coal industry; justify expensive and job-killing air quality and climate rules; and to scare Americans about the air they breathe. Milloy not only debunks the outrageous EPA's claims and exposes them as rank scientific fraud in no uncertain terms, but offers a roadmap for fixing the rogue and out-of-control EPA.

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Bench Press Inc (December 21, 2016)
Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 21, 2016

WALCHER: SMOKING THEM OUT

Book Description

The United States is quickly becoming the first country in history to adopt policies to ensure its own decline. Are we purposely planning our own bleak future? Maybe…

Smoking Them Out argues persuasively that the U.S. is adopting official policies promoting a lower standard of living for future generations, literally encouraging Americans to travel less, live in smaller and less comfortable homes, give up their cars, eliminate many other modern conveniences, and even burn their own food supply by subsidizing ethanol production at the expense of higher grocery prices.

No nation has ever even considered such a future, but America is charting a new direction, based on the view that free enterprise is selfish, that prosperity is unequal and thus unfair, and that our people must stop much of their production, manufacturing, and especially consumption. And it’s all founded on the dubious theory that our pursuit of the good life is destroying our environment.

Most Americans care deeply about their environment, but do not realize that the conservation movement has been hijacked– stolen by a huge industry of dishonest money changers whose agenda has nothing to do with the environment. Instead, they are now using the popularity of environmental causes to gain control, power, and money.

A new “us-against-them” mentality has replaced Americans’ almost universal support for environmental protection with contention, antagonism, confrontation, and litigation. Legislation, ballot initiatives, and lawsuits have taken the place of community discussion and consensus, and few leaders have discovered the better approach that Walcher outlines.

Based on his work in Colorado and Washington, D.C. over the past 30 years, he shows how states, local governments, businesses, and private individuals can take control of conservation issues, improve the environment without the help of federal agencies or environmentalists, and smoke out those with another agenda. That means recovering endangered species, restoring healthy forests, cleaning the air and water, providing clean energy.

Smoking Them Out shines a much needed light on the path to a sustainable future for America and all our future generations; taking back the high ground, doing the right thing, and becoming a leader in a new conservation movement.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Gary Cima November 19, 2022 at 2:26 am

Hello Greg. Well, the endless smoke from another terrible summer has passed. There were so

Many days this summer when you couldn’t even go outside the smoke was so heavy.

I want to thank YOU for standing up and speaking out on the TRUTH behind these crazy programs,

direction, etc. I retired four years ago from 38.5 run in psycho law enforcement.

I worked with some really great guys at the Forest Circus and BLM. All but one has left those agencies due

the weird directions they have taken.

Insane times are here; I often wonder, can we save ourselves? The Cedar Creek Fire started Sept 9th and could have easily been crushed with a chopper and a bucket pulling from nearby Waldo Lake…..but Oh No!…..setup a mini-city, bring in advisors and subject matter experts on everything but insect vocalizations for this never-ending fiasco🤮

Again, high praises for your stance and sharing!! GC

TANTON: ELECTRIFICATION REPORT

Policy - E&E Legal

overview

A cornerstone of E&E Legal is sound energy and environment public policy research, conducted by some of the leading and most recognizable experts in the country. Our experts conduct primary research, which are published and released to the media as well. As a result of the policy work, our experts are also asked to testify before Congress, state legislatures, private conferences, and other venues.

E&E Legal’s Energy and Environment policy efforts are led by Tom Tanton, Director of Science and Technology Assessment. Tanton has more than 40 years of direct and responsible experience in energy technology and legislative interface, having been central to many of the critical legislative changes that enable technology choice and economic development at the state and federal level.

State-by-State “Electrification” Costs Report

On September 22, 2020, E&E Legal released a state-by-state report on the capital cost associated with “electrification” for states and the nation. The report, and its accompanying data spreadsheet, was authored by Tom Tanton, E&E Legal’s Director of Science and Technology Assessment.

According to the report, electrifying the entire nation, with a goal of eliminating the direct consumption of fuel and reducing climate change emissions, would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion in first costs. Going all renewable will force costs to the high end of the range. Also, constructing and implementing an “all-electric” nation will include two other significant costs: stranded assets and deadweight losses. The bottom line is that electrification is not a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions from commercial or residential buildings nor the transportation sector.

The anti-ESG movement is the climate denial movement

Before the anti-ESG movement was the anti-ESG movement, it was the anti-CSR movement, the acronym standing for Corporate Social Responsibility. The two leaders of the anti-CSR movement were Steve Milloyand Tom Borelli.

Milloy is a former coal company executive and paid advocate for Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil. His career focus is developing communication strategies to deny or downplay the risks of tobacco and fossil fuel pollution. He is among the most prominent people “clouding the climate change debate,” according to theThe Washington Post.

Borelli is “one of the best-known of the science corrupters who worked for the tobacco industry,” according to The Center for Media and Democracy. In the 90s, while working for Phillip Morris, he led the tobacco industry’s efforts to team up with other polluting industries—like coal and chemicals—to promote anti-science rhetoric. “The climate denial movement is a direct result of these coalitions,” according to CMD. (He now promotes climate denial).

In 2004, Milloy and Borelli formed a non-profit called the Free Enterprise Education Institute. The non-profit’s purpose, according to its tax forms, was to “educate the public about the American system of free enterprise” by “maintaining a website about its research.”

The website they launched was called CSRwatch.com, and was marketed as a news destination for anyone opposed to “corporate social responsibility.” CSRwatch primarily aggregated news articles attacking corporations that had climate change and other socially conscious policies, like refusing to invest in child labor.

A February 16, 2006 screenshot of CSRwatch.com. Source: Wayback Machine.

One article posted to CSRwatch in 2006, for example, slammed corporations that refuse to invest in overseas sweatshops, saying they deprive children in developing countries of good paying jobs. "They try to shut down so-called sweatshops as though no jobs [are] better than what they consider to be low quality jobs, as though working as a 12-year-old beggar, thief or prostitute is better than working in a garment or shoe factory,” it read.

The article also slammed pro-indigenous corporate policies. "I would love to meet just one corporate social responsibility activist … who's willing to go native for even one month and live in a state-of-the-art mud hut in malaria-infested rural Africa under the indigenous conditions they extol and perpetuate,"it read.

CSRWatch was directly funded by the fossil fuel industry. From 2004 to 2005, ExxonMobil gave the Free Enterprise Education Institute $80,000. The non-profit also received grants from a Koch family charity foundation, DonorsTrust, and The Randolph Foundation, all conservative groups with ties to fossil fuels.

The original anti-ESG investing movement was not so great at investing

CSRWatch was not Borelli and Milloy’s only effort to push back against ESG investing in the mid-2000s. They also set up a mutual fund called the The Free Enterprise Action Fund, designed to show that being anti-woke was also good business.

The fund sought to achieve long-term investment returns “while aggressively challenging CEOs who use shareholder assets to advance the liberal political agenda.” But, perhaps because neither Borelli nor Milloy had any experience managing money professionally, the fund didn’t do very well, according to a 2006 Slate piece:

Judging by the early returns, these free-marketers are failing the test of the marketplace. The fund has attracted a paltry $5.2 million in assets as of March 31. Returns have lagged the S&P 500 badly. In its first 10 months in business, the fund returned 2.32 percent while the S&P 500 rose 4.72 percent.

Of course, the fund’s poor performance could also simply have been explained by the fact that it’s bad business to ignore environmental and social risk factors. Indeed, this is why the bulk of the financial and corporate worlds don’t agree with the anti-ESG movement. They know that ESG investing, particularly investing with climate change risk in mind, is not ideological. It’s merely the smartest long-term financial decision.

The anti-ESG movement doesn’t agree with this assessment for one reason, and one reason only: They’re climate deniers. And the fact that they’re climate deniers is not a coincidence. That is what the fossil fuel industry intended.

The new anti-ESG movement: same folks, different face

The original anti-ESG movement eventually appeared to fizzle. CSRwatch.com stopped being updated in late 2007 and the domain expired in 2008. Shortly after, The Free Enterprise Action Fund was merged into a separate mutual fund that had nothing to do with anti-ESG advocacy.

The Free Enterprise Education Institute was then acquired by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a much larger right-wing think tank funded by some of the similar players, including ExxonMobil. The NCPPR announced that Milloy and Borelli would remain at the head of the project, which would from then on be called the Free Enterprise Project.

At the time, Borelli said the merger would “significantly enhance our ability to educate the public on emerging threats to our free enterprise system.” And though it took about 14 years, it appears Borelli was correct.

The new anti-ESG financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Strive Asset Management, is being led by Justin Danhof, the former executive Vice President of the NCPPR. In a recent interview with the Capitol Account newsletter,Danhof explained his qualifications: “I ran a program called the Free Enterprise Project,” he said. “We were really at the beginning of what you would call any sort of pushback against ESG, woke capital — before it was even a term.”

It may be more sophisticated today, but the anti-ESG movement is the same as it ever was: a political effort to delay climate action led by fossil fuel industry propagandists. It follows the classic playbook of climate disinformationby trying to “both sides” the idea of climate risk. But Witold Henisz, the director of the Wharton School’s ESG program, put it best: “Climate risk is investment risk. There is no credible other side, only an ideological opposition cynically seeking a wedge issue for upcoming political campaigns.”

“Proponents of climate science and more sustainable investing need to plan and execute their counterattack,” he added. “Silence in the face of such an attack is complicity. Which side are you on?”

Steve Milloy on Twitter: "ESG is a communist scheme for ...

https://twitter.com › junkscience › status

Jul 10, 2022 — ESG is a communist scheme for circumventing democratic processes to impose arbitrarily-determined standards on corporations in order to hijack ...

### Steve Milloy on Twitter: "ESG is an illegal leftist scheme for ...

https://twitter.com › JunkScience › status

Sep 8, 2022 — ESG is an illegal leftist scheme for circumventing democratic processes to impose arbitrarily-determined standards on companies in order to ...

"The Top 10 Under-reported Climate Flops of 2021" (Steve ...

https://www.masterresource.org › top-10-climate-flops-...

Dec 28, 2021 — One is Steve Milloy, founder and proprietor of JunkScience. ... Environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) investing is all the ...

SEC urged to tackle companies' ESG boasts

https://www.corporatesecretary.com › articles › sec-urg...

Aug 15, 2019 — The SEC has received the latest request to act on ESG-related ... risks to their businesses,' E&E Legal director Steve Milloy writes.

Conservative shareholders attack 'climate clown show'

https://www.eenews.net › Articles

Jun 10, 2022 — Conservative rabble-rouser Steve Milloy wasn't happy last year when ... They are part of a broader conservative assault on ESG investing ...

Time to separate the G from ESG, SquareWell Partners argues ...

https://valueedgeadvisors.com › 2022/04/16 › time-to-s...

In response to MSCI's recent 2022 ESG trends to watch report, which states ... for Opposing Anti-Shareholder Proposal from Oil Industry Shill Steven Milloy.

Conservative Shareholder Proposals Rise Amid Anti-ESG ...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com › securities-law › conse...

Aug 31, 2022 — At Exxon, Steve Milloy, a top proponent of anti-ESG proposals who previously worked on the Trump administration's EPA transition team, ...

How to Confront the Anti-ESG Campaign

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu › article › how-to...

Aug 30, 2022 — The anti-ESG or anti-woke investment movement is following the ... and Steven J. Milloy, the average level of support received was 7%.

Shareholder Proposals and ESG's Discontent - 24/7 Wall St.

https://247wallst.com › sponsored-content › 2022/07/18

Jul 18, 2022 — This year, shareholders presented 924 ESG proposals to companies in ... on ESG issues – Steven Milloy, The National Legal and Policy Center, ...

Defenders of ESG Go on the Offensive | Morningstar

https://www.morningstar.com › articles › defenders-of-...

Sep 7, 2022 — ... anti-ESG proposals filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and Steven J. Milloy ...

===

desmog mercer fam fdn

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute $200,000 $200,000

===

8/20 i wonder if horner strays from agenda 21 to grn blk death, ebell cei does, so found: [this comes from p 10 (of _?}of archive of press release art'ls]

https://eelegal.org/ee-legal-letters-issue-ix-ee%e2%80%88legal-releases-energy-poverty-video-for-papal-visit/

2 min vid]

Pope Francis and other faith leaders have made addressing ‘climate change’ one of most important ‘moral’ issues of our time. During his historic visit to the United States in September, the Pope in an address to a joint session of Congresssaid, “I call for a courageous and responsible effort to ‘redirect our steps’ and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference, and I have no doubt that the United States — and this Congress — have an important role to play.”

E&E Legal firmly believes that humanity has a moral obligation to protect and preserve the environment. However, the Pope’s strategy to address ‘climate change’ – which is shared by many other faith leaders, extremists in the United Nations, and socialistic governments across Europe and the rest of the world – will only bring skyrocketing energy prices that have already devastated and killed the most vulnerable in those countries who have employed such policies.

To raise awareness of these failed and dangerous ‘climate’ policies prior to the Papal visit. As the video illustratress, these policies demanded in the name of climate change — which policies no one claims will detectably impact the climate, and so which are now offered in the name of protecting the most vulnerable — are in fact already killing the most vulnerable, by the tens of thousands.

Headlines used in the video come from Europe, where President Obama used to tell Americans to look if they want to see how these policies will work yet whose experiences, curiously, he no longer wants us to examine. Yet we echo Mr. Obama’s now-abandoned call: look to Europe if you want to see the U.S.’s future should EPA’s“global warming” rules be allowed to go into effect. Close examination reveals ugly truths.

This campaign to promote the environmentalists’ energy agenda turns morality on its head, and the public needs to know what, it seems, many advisers are apparently unwilling to let on. The evidence is clear and continued ignorance of the truth should no longer be tolerated, whether by the faithful being exhorted to lend their churches to this cause, or those who are moved by emotional, yet unsupportable appeals to change the climate or help the poor.

E&E Legal Senior Fellow Chris Horner notes, “In no rational world does social justice mean killing seniors [death panel bs? trump utter covid fail, go hug grandma?] and the poor in the name of a political cause; it is only worse that this cause is in the name of ‘climate’ when there is an actual consensus that these policies will have no impact on the climate. However, it is truly offensive to promote it in the name of the most vulnerable, who are the policies’ principal victims.”

Headlines in newspapers of all stripes, left-wing groups and social service organizations cry out about the “scandal” of these many premature deaths. Unlike computer-prophesied scenarios of the future, these deaths are real, they are occurring now and they are dramatically increasing. They are a direct, disgraceful result of government policies in the name of a fashionable cause that we know cannot rationally be what it purports to be, given these policies have no projected climate impact.

We do know these policies and EPA’s imminent contribution will kill more of those in whose name the rules are now promoted. These terrible costs must spread no further, and instead it is time to roll the cruel ideological agenda back. Telling the truth about this agenda’s impacts is an overdue, important first step.

:{E&E Legal has also made versions of its }:{, whose government has indicated it can no longer bear these all-pain, no-gain policies, }:{. In December, }::{France will host the talks at which President Obama will agree to a new treaty — which he once again insists is not a treaty, to avoid the Senate having its say — replacing the failed Kyoto Protocol.}::{ Kyoto}::{, of course, went nowhere in the U.S. given that President Clinton acknowledged it was a treaty}::{. As with Iran, Mr. Obama is taking no such chances. This does not mean the public and their elected representatives are without a voice in these maters. }::{Congress must block EPA’s rules and demand a Senate vote on the upcoming Paris treaty.}:

E&E Legal Executive Director Craig Richardson, who authored an article in June responding to the release of Pope Francis’ ‘climate change’ encyclical, concludes, “As a practicing Catholic, I find it impossible to reconcile the policies advocated by Pope Francis in Laudato Si, which have had such a devastating impact on Europe’s most vulnerable, and he and the Catholic Church’s longstanding commitment to the world’s poor and most marginalized. It is my hope that Pope Francis and other religious leaders will rethink their approach, recognize that providing affordable, reliable energy sources is the most effective way of lifting the poor out of poverty, and understand that these failed ‘climate’ policies they espouse are clearly not the answer, in fact they’re the problem.”

November 23rd, 2015|"Climate Change", E&E Legal Letters, Energy Poverty, Horner, Richardson

video energy poverty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y-DHFVrJGc&feature=youtu.be

video: 800K germans; 2nd rent; more than mortgage i9n 5 ys [uk indep?]; Ire heat or eat 12/23/11

gina mcc admits useless 7/9/15

june 1st promised to bail

staff [ivanka?] looking for a way to go back on paris promise; us elctr cost skyrocket (no proof) also claim no proof that winter kia will be worse in us than eur; 68 views; sun crown halo trump head; no excuses for a policy that kills most vuln; already lawyers are asking judges? to use it against us [juliana =kids?!]

https://eelegal.org/press-release-ee-legal-releases-energy-poverty-video-encourage-president-trump-remain-firm-u-s-commitment-withdraw-paris-treaty/

W:{ashington, D.C. – Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) released }:{, elaborating on the terrible human cost of “climate” policies (with no actual projected impact on climate), noting political and legal developments since President Trump’s }:dramatic announcement:{ on June 1, 2017, that the United States would withdraw from the United Nations-led Paris global warming treaty.}:

In his Rose Garden address, the President said, “The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”

Leading up to the announcement, President Trump faced intense lobbying from leaders around the world, the domestic and international corporate media, multinational corporations, universities, think tanks, and numerous other external entities. The cries were heard loudest from those who have a vested interest inthe $1.5 trillion global climate change industry. Trump took a clear and unequivocal stance during his presidential campaign that he would withdraw the U.S. from the unfair and improperly “ratified” Paris treaty as a purely executive agreement — that legal fiction of the Obama White House making the U.S. an outlier among nations. After taking office, he faced intense internal pressure to flip-flop on his promise to the American people, from Obama holdovers, career staff and even some “Remain” appointees of his own.

Those appointees — including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and former Goldman Sachs official, now chair of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn — profess to support the President. Nonetheless, this past weekend, as President Trump prepared for his first formal address to the United Nations, the Wall Street Journal reported that the President may be open to staying in the Paris Treaty, suggesting he was softening on his unequivocal June 1st announcement. The White House quickly refuted the Journal’s assertion and reaffirmed that the President’s position had not changed.

“The fact that the recent “Remain” story was orchestrated in the first place, certainly driven in part by administration appointees, is a clear indication of the ongoing battle to get the President to reverse course before he actually, formally withdraws the illegitimate claim that the U.S. ratified the Paris treaty”, said Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) President Craig Richardson. “The President, along with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and White House Counsel’s Office, have taken a lifesaving position in ensuring global elitists both here and abroad don’t shipwreck the U.S. economy through climate policies that have already devastated Europe, and we commend him and urge him to stay strong, and recognize what is truly at stake.”

The new video opens with the President’s June 1st Rose Garden announcement on the Paris Treaty, and then features news coverage from Europe, where former President Obama used to tell Americans to look if they want to see how these policies will work. It also notes that, as predicted, despite all of the misleading sales pitches of a “non-binding” pact lawyers have already stormed the 9th Circuit federal Court of Appeals arguing that the Paris treaty must be held against the U.S..

Headlines from newspapers of all stripes, as well as claims by left-wing groups and social service organizations decry what they acknowledge is the “scandal” of these many premature deaths, generally from hypothermia. Unlike computer-prophesied scenarios of the future, these deaths are real, they are occurring now in dramatically increasing numbers each winter. They are a direct, disgraceful result of government policies in the name of a fashionable cause that we know cannot rationally be what it purports to be, given these policies have no projected climate impact.

This campaign to promote the environmentalists’ anti-energy agenda turns morality on its head, and the public needs to know what, it seems, many advisers are apparently unwilling to let on. The evidence is clear and continued ignorance of the truth should no longer be tolerated.

“The battle to extricate the United States from this unfair, constitutionally repugnant and morally bankrupt global warming treaty is far from over, and we stand ready to do our part in educating the public on how these polices have already been tried in Europe and people are dying as a result,” Richardson concluded.

About EE Legal

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.

September 21st, 2017|2015 Paris Talks, Energy Poverty, Paris Climate Treaty, Press Releases, Richardson, Video

http://cdn.cnsnews.com/documents/E&E_Legal_FOIA_Collusion_Report_9-15-2014%20(1).pdf

300 pp on war on coal

Energy & Environment Legal Institute Report:

Improper Collusion Between

Environmental Pressure Groups and the

Environmental Protection Agency

As Revealed by

Freedom of Information Act Requests

Interim Report

SEPTEMBER 2014

Attorney Author:

Chris Horner 1

Contributing reviewer:

David Schnare, Ph.D.

Contact: horner@fmelawclinic.org

E&E Legal wishes to thank Clifford Smith of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which 1

represents E&E Legal on numerous FOIA matters, for his substantial contributions to this report. We also

thank reviewers Chaim Mandlebaum and Matthew Hardin.

Executive Summary

This report examines lessons learned from documents produced pursuant to several

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute

(E&E Legal, or EELI) — pieced together with others obtained by the Competitive Enterprise

Institute (CEI). It focuses on the relationship between the Obama Administration’s

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various special interest groups. The Obama EPA

claims to be pursuing a common-sense agenda, but its own emails reveal a clear understanding,

internally and with its allies, that its agenda is ideological and that it is in fact pursuing candidate

Obama's vow to “bankrupt” coal.

Emails prove this agenda is assisted both in its big picture and

in detail by pressure groups from which EPA obtained many senior staff. The public shift to

more moderate positions was purely rhetorical, in response to political pressures.

The truth of how EPA operates also is starkly contrary to Mr. Obama’s promises of

limiting the influence of special interests, the revolving door, and transparency. Contrary to

candidate Obama’s promise to run the “most transparent administration in history,” free of

conflicts of interest, documents reveal that various environmentalist pressure groups with

extreme agendas have unprecedented access to and influence upon their former colleagues and

other ideological allies who are now EPA officials.

EPA serves as an extension of these groups

and neither EPA nor the groups recognize any distinction between them.

Further, certain officials have glaring appearances of conflicts yet were rushed into place

to impose an agenda they had long advocated as outside activists, precisely opposite of the

behavior called for by conflicts policy, contrary to Executive Order 12674.

Table of Contents:

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

EPA Agenda Demands Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

The Early Days of the New Administration – The Johnson Memo and

“Endangerment” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..32

Not Just Conflicting Rhetoric: EPA Conflicts of Interests Lead

to Impermissible Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Specific Conflicts of Interests at EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

EPA, Sierra Club — “Pants on Fire” & Too Close for Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

EPA/Sierra Collusion on Rules, Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

EPA/Sierra Collusion on State Level Bureaucratic Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70

EPA/Sierra Collusion on Rule Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..72

EPA/Green Group Collusion on Public Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Other EPA/Green Pressure Group Political Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

EPA/Sierra Collaboration to Shield EPA Regulation from

Congressional Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Appendix A - Cast of Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Appendix B - All Emails Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Appendix C - All Other Non-Public Documents Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267

===

1119 grab

EPA appointee faces blowback in move to academia

Sean Reilly, E&E News reporter

Published: Friday, November 22, 2019

Last month, former deputy EPA air chief Clint Woods took a newly minted job at Ohio State University to forge "strategic partnerships" with outside organizations.

PEOPLE

EPA appointee faces blowback in move to academia

Greenwire: Friday, November 22, 2019

PEOPLE

Ex-EPA officials' firm adds partner

Greenwire: Wednesday, November 20, 2019

PEOPLE

Nation's largest grid operator picks CEO

Energywire: Wednesday, November 20, 2019

PEOPLE

Ceres chief joins federal advisory panel

E&E News PM: Friday, November 15, 2019

WHITE HOUSE

Trump adds academics to industry-stacked science panel

Greenwire: Friday, November 15, 2019

919 seems a going concern

https://eelegal.org/fellows-advisors-2/

omfg

craig@hypno-happiness.com

http://hypno-happiness.com

Hypno-Happiness

MORE INFO

About

I'm an intuitive hypnotherapist helping in behavioral transformations; relationship strategies; motivation; & health & recovery goals. Skype and phone too.

1350 Beverly Rd., #115-445, McLean, VA 22101

Phone: 202-810-2001

Email: Info@eelegal.org

EIN	82-3127477
Name in IRS Master File	SPEAK UP 4 LIBERTY INC
Address	1350 BEVERLY RD STE 115 # 445 MCLEAN, VA 22101-3917
NTEE Code	R99
NTEE Classification	Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.
NTEE Type	Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy
Classification	Charitable Organization
Subsection	501(c)(3) (View the list of codes)
Activities
Foundation Status	Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
Deductibility	Contributions are deductible
Affiliation	Independent - the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
Group Name	[Not Applicable]
Ruling Date	August, 2018
Asset Amount	$0
Income Amount	$0
Form 990 Revenue Amount	$0
Latest Form 990 Return
Filing Requirement	990 (all other) or 990EZ return
Fiscal Year End	December

schnare broken?

fight: WT BS ben

GOP in control of the White House and Congress, conservatives are finally poised to mount a coordinated attack on federal environmental regulations — but some of their strength is being sapped by a nasty fight inside one of the movement’s key advocates.

The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which gained notoriety for challenging a host of Obama-era rules, was founded in 2011 and has been home for several pro-Trump figures.

But they’re now feuding amid allegations of extortion, lying to the IRS, harassment and other mismanagement that threatens to shutter the law clinic just as it should be providing muscle for President Trump’s push to free the economy of burdensome regulations.

One side of the fight is led by Chris Horner, a conservative attorney perhaps best known for exposing former Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson’s use of secret non-government email addresses. He also served on the Trump administration’s EPA transition team.

On the other side is David Schnare, a veteran EPA employee who led the law clinic until early last year, when he again accepted an appointment at the agency. His second stint at the EPA lasted just two months amid widespread reports of deep disagreements with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

After he left the law clinic, his former colleagues said they discovered a list of improprieties. In court papers they say Mr. Schnare abused the organization’s tax-exempt status, misappropriated funds and tried to use the organization’s assets as his own, and later tried to extort the group, demanding a huge cash payout to hide his actions.

brattleboro vt reformer

http://www.reformer.com/stories/email-ruling-exposes-think-tanks-motivations,522734

We applaud a recent ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court ordering former Attorney General Bill Sorrell to turn over private emails that may contain conversations related to any of his duties as the state's top law enforcement officer.

You might recall that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating whether Exxon Mobil misled the company's investors and the public about the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. Schneiderman has since been accused by the fossil fuel industry and "think tanks" funded by extraction industries of conducting a politically motivated investigation.

One of those "think tanks," the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, claims Sorrell was working with Schneiderman and other attorneys general to investigate the oil giant, effectively chilling free speech.EELI is on a fishing expedition, hoping to uncover information to prove that Sorrell conspired with Schneiderman to conduct the investigation.

"There were several states attorneys general that decided to investigate people who didn't agree with their opinion of how global warming works," Institute attorney Matthew Hardin told The Associated Press. "So we decided to file these public records requests to see what is going on in Vermont and why they are investigating political opponents for things that are not violations of criminal law."

"Mr. Sorrell was co-ringleader, along with New York's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, in a 'climate-RICO' scandal and the records we seek are essential in determining the level of his involvement and to what extent, if any, he may have violated the law," the group noted in a recent press release. RICO is the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is frequently used to prosecute organized crime.

Schneiderman's spokeswoman, Amy Spitalnick, said this is just the latest effort "to distract negative attention from the fossil fuel companies who fund E&E's endless stream of baseless litigation against independent public prosecutors."

The request from EELI for the emails is couched in all sorts of high-minded jargon about freedom of information, but as the Union of Concerned Scientists has noted, the Energy and Environment Legal Institute's tactics amount to nothing more than harassment of climate scientists. In other words, EELI is calling the kettle black when it accuses Schneiderman of attempting "to chill free speech."

To buttress our conclusion, let's take a deeper look at EELI, which, according to the Institute for Southern Studies, has "connections with the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence." At one time, since purged from its website, EELI stated that it "is part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation."

EELI has gone under other names in its past — American Tradition Institute, American Tradition Partnership and the Western Tradition Partnership — and, according to DeSmog Blog, it was "associated with controversy in campaign financing during the 2010 elections." According to the Huffington Post, ATP/WTP and the American Tradition Institute (whose mission was to battle "radical environmentalist junk science head on") worked to fight laws requiring the disclosure of political contributions by corporations. In 2010, the Montana Commission of Political Practices found that the Western Tradition Partnership had broken state law by failing to report its donors and spending. The Commission found that the organization solicited unlimited contributions to support candidates and then passed them through a "sham organization" called The Coalition for Energy and the Environment that ran attack ads against Democrats.

According to The Guardian, EELI's core mission is actually "discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations" and is "a free-market think tank that wants the public to believe human-caused global warming is a scientific fraud" that uses tactics including "filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research."

"When E&E Legal doesn't get everything it asks for, it will typically file a lawsuit and take the scientist and university to court," the Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch writes.

DeSmog Blog noted that in March 2015, an Arizona trial court supported the University of Arizona in denying record requests by EELI, which claimed it wanted the emails for its "transparency project," though it also openly admitted that it was seeking things to embarrass climate researchers. The scientific community supported the court ruling, but E&E Legal proceeded to appeal the decision.

It's important to note that any official business being conducted by governmental agents, such as the attorney general in this case, be conducted with the use of official channels of communication. The Vermont Supreme Court correctly noted that the state's right to know extends to private email accounts of state employees if those messages otherwise meet the state's definition of a public record. Governmental officials should be on notice following this ruling, but let's not pretend EELI's legal actions have anything to do with freedom of information. The organization has two missions — and that is to suppress the overwhelming evidence that global climate change is an anthropomorphic phenomenon, and to protect its fossil fuel funders.

10/24/2017

According to The Guardian, EELI’s core mission is actually “discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations” and is “a free-market think tank that wants the public to believe human-caused global warming is a scientific fraud” that uses tactics including “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research.”

“When E&E Legal doesn’t get everything it asks for, it will typically file a lawsuit and take the scientist and university to court,” the Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch writes.

reformer indep?

, coal-funded E&E Legal – which has a core mission of discrediting climate science – appeared before an Arizona trial court in an attempt to extract over $179,000 from the University of Arizona.

E&E Legal first sued the University for years of two climate scientists’ emails. The trial court originally ruled in March 2015 to protect the scientists’ emails, but a second decision in June 2016 completely reversed the earlier ruling. This new decision forces climate scientists to work within a fishbowl, where every informal email exchange can be picked apart by agenda-driven opponents – inhibiting scientific debate, discouraging collaboration, and chilling academic thought. (An appeal on the decision is due this fall.)

Of course, E&E Legal is not satisfied with these outcomes alone, and the group is now trying to force the University of Arizona to pay it six figures in attorney’s fees and costs. The judge’s decision on E&E Legal’s payment claim is pending.

E&E Legal is part of a broader group going after climate scientists. Climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann(who has experienced more than his share of politically-motivated attacks) has teamed with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles on a new book discussing these "climate wars." In :{*The Madhouse Effect*}:, the pair present an informative and highly entertaining takedown of climate change denial. You can pre-order a copy :{here}:, and all proceeds will support CSLDF.

http://www.desmogblog.com/energy-environment-legal-institute

Background

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), formerly the American Tradition Institute (ATI), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit based in Washington, DC. A2011 study by the Institute for Southern Studies reported that E&E legal had connections with “the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence.” [1], [4]

The Guardian has described E&E Legal/the American Tradition Instituteas having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations,” while E&E Legal has been called “a free-market think tank that wants the public to believe human-caused global warming is a scientific fraud” that uses tactics including “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research.” [28], [4]

The group's website at one time stated it was part of a “broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.” [4]

E&E's mission statement reads as follows:

“The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its strategic litigation efforts, E&E Legal seeks to address and correct onerous federal and state governmental actions that negatively impact energy and the environment. E&E Legal advocates responsible resource development, sound science, respect for property rights, and a commitment to markets as it holds accountable those who seek excessive and destructive government regulation that’s based on agenda-driven policy making, junk science, and hysteria.” [1]

E&E Legal has repeatedly requested emails of climate scientists working at state universities including their personal emails and for work not yet completed or ready for publication. [26]

“When E&E Legal doesn't get everything it asks for, it will typically file a lawsuit and take the scientist and university to court,” the Center for Media and Democracy's*PR Watch* writes. [26]

The Union of Concerned Scientists has described the Energy and Environment Legal Institute's tactics as tantamount to the harassment of climate scientists. [27]

American Tradition Institute

The Energy and Environment Legal Institute has undergone a number of name changes and evolutions since it started, and the group was originally based on Colorado. According to Sourcewatch, E&E Legal was originally known as the American Tradition Institute, which was a “sister organization” to the 501(C)(4) organization “American Tradition Partnership” (ATP) or “Western Tradition Partnership” (WTP). All three names were associated with controversy in campaign financing during the 2010 elections. [9]

In September 2013, E&E Legal's Board of Directors voted“to refine its focus primarily to the area of strategic litigation, and to change its name in order to reflect more accurately its work in the legal arena.” [1]

When the Western Trade Partnershipchanged its name to the American Tradition Partnership in 2010, it also announced that it had launched the American Tradition Institute, a think tank it said would be “battling radical environmentalist junk science head on.” [4]

The *Huffington Post*reports ATP/WTP and the American Tradition Institute worked to fight laws requiring the disclosure of political contributions by corporations. In 2010, the Montana Commission of Political Practices found that the Western Tradition Partnership had broken state law by failing to report its donors and spending.

They found that it solicited unlimited contributions to support candidates and then passed them through a “sham organization” called The Coalition for Energy and the Environmentthat ran attack ads against Democrats. WTP told corporations that it aimed to combat 'radical environmentalists' and 'beat them at their own game' and that their contributions would remain secret.” The state also suggested that WTP/ATP had been involved in corruption and money laundering. [2], [3]

Other Aliases

The Economic Research Institute (ERI), which also records publicly available 990 forms, lists some of the known aliases for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EIN26-4239065): [20]

American Tradition Institute
Energy & Environment Legal Institute
Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Western Tradition Institute
Western Tradition Institute Dba American Tradition Institute

George Mason Environmental Law Clinic aka Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FMELC)

According to the 2012 IRS filing of the George Mason Environment Law Clinic (EIN 4516021963), “The law clinic serves as the attorneys for the American Tradition Institute. The billable hours in these matters is shared by the FME Law Clinic and ATI, the division made on a case by case basis. [34]

Some cases listed on “Ongoing litigation” at the time included:

ATI v. UVA
Occoquan Watershet Coalition v. EPA
ATI V. NASA
ATI V. Epel
ATI v. EPA [partic holo?]

===

insert:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00859-WJM-BNB AMERICAN TRADITION INSTITUTE, and ROD LUECK, Plaintiffs, v. JOSHUA EPEL, JAMES TARPEY, and PAMELA PATTON, Defendants, ENVIRONMENT COLORADO, CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND, SIERRA CLUB, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, and INTERWEST ENERGY ALLIANCE, Defendant-Intervenors. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF INTRODUCTION On April 4, 2011, the American Tradition Institute and Rod Lueck (collectively, “ATI”) filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. (Doc. No. 1.) A day later the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (hereinafter “the First Amended Complaint”), correcting a single statement. (Doc. No. 7.) Under its Scheduling Order, the Court established a deadline for final amendment of pleadings of July 1, 2013. (Doc. No. 149 at p. 18.) This deadlin

...

reflected the fact that a bill had been presented to the Governor that would significantly reduce the number of claims the Plaintiffs would need to prosecute. The Governor signed that bill into law on June 5, 2013, Senate Bill 13-252. This Second Amended Complaint reflects the changes in the law as a result of that enactment. Subsequent to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have also identified an additional facial violation in the statute, one not addressed in SB 13-252, and add a claim to address that unconstitutional enactment.

Further, ATI has reevaluated some of its claims and concluded that if its first claim prevails, some of sections of the statute addressed in latter claims become mere voluntary programs and not worthy of litigation. Thus, in order to narrow the matters placed before the court, Plaintiffs are withdrawing some of its claims. Finally, the parties have agreed to narrow the list of state defendants and some members of the Public Utility Commission have changed, necessitating changes in the names of some of the named state defendants. These changes are also reflected in this Second Amended Complaint.

NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. The American Tradition Institute (ATI) brings this civil action on behalf of their members, including the named individual Plaintiff, Rod Lueck, (jointly, the “Plaintiffs” or “ATI”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, asking the Court to: (1) declare the Colorado renewable energy standard (RES), codified at C.R.S. 40-2-124, unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; (2) order an award

...

of costs and fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and (3) order such necessary and proper injunctive relief or other injunctive relief as this Court deems just and proper. 2. The Colorado RES discriminates on its face against legal, safer, less costly, less polluting and more reliable in-state and out-of-state generators of electricity sold in interstate commerce. This discrimination is forbidden by the Commerce Clause. PARTIES 3. The American Tradition Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of rational, free-market solutions to America’s land, energy, and environmental challenges. It has members throughout the nation, including in Colorado. The named individual co-Plaintiff is a member of ATI.

The Colorado RES has caused cognizable harm to members of ATI through higher electricity costs, less reliable electricity service, greater emissions of pollutants regulated under the federal Clean Air Act and higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

4. Rod Lueck is a resident of Morrison, Colorado, is a private citizen and businessman and relies on electricity generated within Colorado and from outside Colorado and transmitted through the interstate electric grid serving Colorado. Mr. Lueck states in a declaration (Doc. No. 2) that he is the owner and President of Techmate (dba C5 Solutions for Broker Dealers) a company located in and operating in Colorado but serving customers in the interstate market. Techmate has served the financial services industry since 1984. Over the years, the company’s products have become the most widely used Broker/Dealer back office systems in the industry. The Techmate products require constant on-line service to its clients. Electricity is an essential resource to his business activities. The cost of electricity directly affects the profitability of the business. Mr. Lueck is a member of ATI because its mission reflects his

strong commitment to environmental stewardship and economic liberty.

The Colorado RES has caused and continues to cause cognizable harm to Mr. Lueck through higher electricity costs, less reliable electricity service, greater emissions of pollutants regulated under the federal Clean Air Act and higher emissions of greenhouse gases. 5. The State of Colorado, operating through a voters’ initiative and later through legislative action, adopted and revised its RES codified at C.R.S. 40-2-124. The statutory mandates in the RES are forbidden by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 6. Joshua Epel is Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. He is named as a defendant in his official capacity. The Public Utilities Commission implements the RES. He has publically supported the RES and expansion of its scope and discriminatory effect. 7. James Tarpey is a Commissioner of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. He is named as a defendant in his official capacity. The Public Utilities Commission implements the RES. He has publically supported the RES and expansion of its scope and discriminatory effect. 8. Pamela J. Patton, is a Commissioner of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. She is named as a defendant in her official capacity. The Public Utilities Commission implements the RES. She has publically supported the RES and expansion of its scope and discriminatory effect. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action arises under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

...

===

SA has been sorely lacking in the fight against Climate Change and Global Warming.Greenhouse Gas Emissions by the US has increased tremendously from 1990 the benchmark year when countries under Kyoto Protocol pledged to reduced their Carbon Emissions.However US has refused to do anything and has not even signed the Kyoto Protocol.The hopelessly rudderless leadership in the US has failed to pass any Clean Energy Laws like Cap and Trade ( not my favorite),Federal RPS etc.Some states have been showing proactive leadership like California despite massive opposition by the powerful oil and gas lobby (Valero,Koch Brothers).Their efforts are being stymied by the very rich who don’t care about global warming as they can easily use their money to mitigate any affect on them and the powerful fossil fuel lobby with their thinktank puppets.Colorado is the latest state to be hit with a lawsuit regarding its RPS of 30% by 2020.Note RPS means that the state’s utilities are mandated to generate 30% of their electricity from renewable energy.The reason behind their lawsuit is that the costs of energy will be raised.These anti-environment groups fail to account for the massive societal costs of fossil fuels like the affect on health,national security,funding of terrorists through oil money.Electricity prices have been rising much faster than inflation as prices of oil,gas and coal have zoomed up.But when your salary depends on a point of view,it hard to reason on changing it.

Groups challenge Colorado renewable energy law

Two groups and a Morrison businessman are challenging Colorado’s renewable energy standard.They said Monday that they’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

They argue the Colorado law mandating that larger utilities get 30 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 is leading to higher prices for consumers. They claim the law violates Constitution’s interstate commerce clause by imposing burdens on the interstate market for electricity.The Colorado attorney general’s office disagrees and plans to defend the law.The suit was filed by Morrison businessman Rod Lueck, the American Tradition Institute and the American Tradition Partnership.

FMELC's 2014 990 form shows that the Energy and Environment Legal Institute was providing funding for “general support” in the amount of $40,000 that year. [35]

The FMELC was led by the following people: [18]

**David W. Schnare** — Law Clinic Director and Board Director
Steven Gold— Board Director
**Michael Thompson**— Board Director
**Christopher C. Horner** — Litigation Attorney

Stance on Climate Change

An online petition hosted by the American Tradition Institute,an organization which would later become the Energy &Environment Legal Institute, makes the following assertions about climate change: [5]

”[…] the claims of carbon-driven anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are unproven and are, in fact, contested by over 31,000 scientists […]”

”[…] global temperatures have not risen since 2000 and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrates that the earth has actually been cooling for the last 4 years […]”

Funding

Coal Industry Funding

While the Energy & Environment Legal Institute does not publicly disclose its donors, 2015 bankruptcy proceedings with Arch Coal, one of the largest coal producers in the United States,listed E&E legal as a creditor. [26]

*The Intercept*also identified that :{Alpha Natural Resources,:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: another coal company, was funding the Free Market Law Clinic, a group closely related to E&E Legal, as well as directly to E&E's lawyer, Chris Horner. [29]

Donors Capital Fund/Donors Trust

Conservative Transparency reports the following donations for that the Energy & Environment Legal Institute received $505,000 in combined contributions from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. Not that not all of the following funding values have been confirmed by DeSmogBlog. [6]

Vew the attached spreadsheet for additional information on **E&E Legal's funding by year (.xlsx)**.

DonorsTrust (DT)	$455,000
2012	$335,000
2013	$60,000
2014	$60,000
Donors Capital Fund (DCF)	$50,000
2012	$50,000
Grand Total	$505,000

Both Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund are responsible for distributing millions of dollars in grants while concealing the original identity of their donors. [6]

American Tradition Partnership

According to a 2010 filing with the IRS (PDF), The American Tradition Institute received $40,000 from its sister group American Tradition Partnership (ATP).

Atlas Economic Research Foundation

SourceWatch reports a total of $5,000 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, while Conservative Transparency lists an **additional $15,000**from the group. [7], [8]

Atlas is a Virginia-based think tank that, according to ExxonSecrets, received over $1 million in funding from Exxon Mobil since 1998. Atlas also received $122,300 from the Koch family foundations and $735,000 from the Pope foundation. [9]

Vernon K. Krieble Foundation

According to publicly available 990 forms, the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation donated $10,000 to the American Tradition Institute in 2013. [21]

E&E Legal 990 Forms

American Tradition Institute 990 Forms

American-Tradition-Institute-2012

American-Tradition-Institute-2011

2 documents

Western Tradition Institute 990 Forms

Western-Tradition-Institute-2010

1 document

Energy and Environment Legal Institute 2014 (2)

Energy and Environment Legal Institute 2014

Energy and Environment Legal Institute 2013

Energy and Environment Legal Institute 2010

4 documents

Key People

Senior Leadership (2016)[10]

**David Schnare** — General Counsel
Craig Richardson— Executive Director
**Tom Tanton**— Director, Science & Technology Assessment

Fellows & Advisors

Name	2015[11]	2016[22]	Position
Amy Oliver Cooke	Y	Y	Senior Media Fellow
Chris Horner	Y	Y	Senior Legal Fellow
George Taylor	Y	Y	Senior Policy Fellow
Greg Walcher	Y	Y	Board Member and Senior Policy Fellow
Jenna Ashley Robinson	Y	Y	Senior Policy Fellow
Katy Grimes	Y	Y	Senior Media Fellow
Kelly F. Mader		Y	Board Member and Senior Policy Fellow
Steve Milloy	Y	Y	Senior Policy Fellow

Past American Tradition Institute (ATI) Staff

ATI's past executive director Paul Chesser, who WTP/ATP describes as a“noted climate scholar,” is not a scientist. He has edited two weekly conservative newspapers, as well as a variety of fundamentalist websites like The Good Steward.com, Evangelical Press, the Christian Examiner, The Home School Legal Defense Association, and evolution denier Answers in Genesis. [24], [4]

Past ATI Board of Directors

Name	2011[24]	2013[23]
Dennis Champion	Y	Y
Greg Walcher		Y
John Reed	Y
Nick Spyros	Y	Y

Past ATI Staff

Name	2011[24]	2013[23]
Craig Richardson		Y
David Schnare	Y	Y
Paul Chesser	Y
Tom Tanton	Y	Y

Legal Actions

May 10, 2016

The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic issued a complaint to Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, asking him to turn over documents discussing climate change deniers. [47]

“The complaint, filed by attorneys for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, says a request for documents was made on May 10 but not responded to by the extended deadline of May 24 — the longest extension allowable under Vermont law,”

According to the complaint, the groups seek discussions with Matt Pawa, an environmental lawyer for the Climate Accountability Institute; Lem Srolovic, chief of the New York Attorney General’s Environmental Protection Bureau; Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general; and John Passacantando, former executive director of Greenpeace USA. The requests contain keywords relating to a possible investigation being led by attorneys general of multiple states.”

The EELI's request was in retaliation to recent investigations by state attorneys general into how much ExxonMobil knew about climate change while simultaneously denying its existence. [48]

May, 2016

The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) sued the EPA on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association and Dr. James Enstrom, a retired University of California-Los Angeles epidemiologist who disagrees with the EPA's statements on particulate matter.[45]

According to EELI, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was “stacking a scientific advisory panel on air pollution.”

“The EPA has stacked the panel, which is required by law to be independent and unbiased, with researchers who have received over $190 million in discretionary grants from the EPA,” said Steve Milloy in a statement.

“This clearly violates the law and makes a mockery of the notion of ‘independent’ scientific review,” he said.

In June,EELI's request for financial disclosure statements from members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was denied because “the harm to the individuals … clearly outweighs the public interest in such disclosure.” [46]

Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents

E&E Legal filed multiple requests under Arizona's open records laws for the files of University of Arizona climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, seeking thirteen years of documents – including emails dating back to the 90s, reports the Climate Law Blog. [36]

March, 2016

The *Arizona Capital Times* writes that the state Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of a trial judge who said that the University of Arizona did not need to disclose 1,700 emails and other records from Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes. [37]

While Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner had said the university did not abuse its discretion in concluding that disclosing the documents would not be in the best interests of the state, appellate Judge Joseph Howard said it was legally irrelevant what university officials thought was appropriate to disclose. [37]

While this does not guarantee that E&E Legal would gain access to the documents, it did “[raise] the bar for the university to shield them from disclosure.” [37]

March 24, 2015

The Arizona Superior Court for Pima County ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and upheld the University's decision to deny large portions of its open records to E&E Legal. [36]

The court found that the University could properly protect “prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary” as well as prepublication peer review work because the University was justified in concluding that, as is prohibited by Arizona law, “release of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer.” [38]

The court also noted that the “volume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting,” and the court acknowledged that it spent “[m]any hours” of its own reviewing 90 “technical and esoteric” sample emails – a small fraction compared to the other 1700+ withheld emails – with “at least one [sample email] exceeding 800 pages in length.” [38]

July 31, 2014

In a respondents' opening memorandum dated July 31, 2014, the University of Arizona argued that releasing the emails would harm the scientific process and reduce the competitiveness of Arizona public universities as it would put a damper on correspondence between researchers. [36]

June 26, 2014

In a petitioners' opening brief, E&E claimed any fear that releasing emails would “chill the creative efforts of faculty” was “unfounded” and it asserted instead that protecting researcher records actually “encourages and rewards misbehavior.” [36]

February, 2013

The University stated that the documents contained protected intellectual property and applied Arizona's general records exemption that it was “in the best interests of the state” to withhold the documents according to a letter from the University of Arizona to ATI dated February 5, 2013. [36]

October 9, 2013 (Amended Complaint)

In its Amended Complaint, E&E stated it was conducting a “transparency project,” which it claimed was necessitated in large part by its interpretation of emails released in the so-called “Climategate” hacking. This was despite findings from all official “climategate” investigations that found no misconduct by scientists. [36],[39]

E&E Legal v. Colorado (Renewable Energy Standard)

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute has consistently challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s renewable energy standard (RES). The standard, passed in November 2004, imposed stricter standards for emissions standards of power plants. [14]

2015

E&E Legal has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to “review this case and explain once and for all when and why extraterritorial regulation is unconstitutional. “The case is titled *Energy & Environment Legal Institute, et al. v. Joshua Epel*.[31]

2014

David Schnare, general counsel to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, said that the RES “is unconstitutional, and it causes more harm to human health and the environment than it prevents.” [14]

Heartland Institute Policy Analyst Taylor Smith applauded the EELI’s challenge, saying “It’s great to see E&E Legal is not giving up on this very important issue. Colorado has one of the nation’s most stringent renewable energy mandates, a law that accomplishes little else than shift resources from productive sectors to unproductive ones. Let’s hope the law is found unconstitutional.” [14]

April, 2011

E&E Legal (under its former name) and one other plaintiff sued the State of Colorado and several officials “over the constitutionality of the state’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) mandate.” The RES requires the state’s major utilities obtain 30 percent of their power generation from renewable sources by the year 2020. [32]

American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia et al. (Michael Mann Documents)

April, 2014

After the Circuit Court of Prince William County denied the disclosure of certain documents related to Mann, the American Tradition Institute re-opened the case (American Tradition Institute, et al. v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, et al.). It was decided on April 17, 2014 that the original William County court's decision was in the right. [25]

May 16, 2011

American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center and Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall asked a Prince William County judge, under the Commonwealth’s Freedom of Information Act, to expedite the release of documents withheld by the University of Virginia that pertain to the work of its former environmental sciences assistant professor Dr. Michael Mann. [33]

According to the ATI's case summary, the legal action came after the UVA delayed four months since the original request on January 6.[33]

January 6, 2011

Operating as the American Tradition Institute (ATI), The Energy and Environment Legal Institute filed a lawsuit against the University of Virginia and attempted to obtain emails and other documents related to former professor Michael Mann, a world renowned climate scientist.

The Institute sought to reveal Mann's correspondence in an attempt to prove their accusation that he had manipulated data in order to receive government grants. [16]

American Tradition Institute v. NASA (James Hansen Documents)

June 21, 2011

The American Tradition Institute's Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia to force NASA to release ethics records for Dr. James Hansen. [30]

The action followed NASA's denial of ATI's federal Freedom of Information Act request with NASA, seeking records detailing whether and how ‘global warming' activist Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has complied with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and NASA Rules of Behavior. [30]

This case forced NASA and the U.S. Office of Governmental Ethics to change its policy on release of public documents as well as how NASA and others implement their ethics responsibilities. It has resulted in an ongoing investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations. [30]

January 19, 2011

Operating as the American Tradition Institute (ATI), The Energy and Environment Legal Institute filed a federal FOIA request with NASA seeking information on how climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies “has complied with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and NASA Rules of Behaviour.”

E&E Legal sued NASA for withholding documents over concerns about Hansen's privacy rights. [17]

Other Actions

June 13, 2016

Both the Energy and Environment Legal Institute and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic were listed as creditors inPeabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy filings, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [41]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [42]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [43]

*The Guardian* also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [44]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Notable organizations listed in the initial documents include:

Notable individuals named in the initial documents include the following:

December 13, 2015

Writing as a guest blogger on Watts Up With That, CFACT's executive director Craig Rucker denounced the latest UN climate change agreement: [39]

“This agreement will not meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth, even under the U.N.’s own computer models.

“The bad news is that it plants the seeds of a new UN climate regime that left unchecked will swell into a bureaucratic behemoth.”

June 16, 2015

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute created a video claiming many environmental policies “will actually harm to most vulnerable among us” and warns Pope Francis not to back environmental policies. The video implies that climate policies are contributing to “energy property” that is “killing Europe's seniors and poor by the tens of thousands.”

Video below:

The video was also promoted in an article headlined, “Conservatives Warn Pope That Climate Policies Will Kill Seniors, Poor” in the *Daily Caller*. [12]

June, 2015

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute's Attorney at Law Chris Horner was a speaker at the 2015 Coal and Investment Leadership Forum. Those named in the invitation included Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, Tennessee Valley Authority president Bill Johns, and “the owners and chief executives of coal mining and energy companies” including Alliance Resource Partners, Alpha Natural Resources, Consol Energy, Drummond Company, Arch Coal, and United Coal Company.

According to *The Guardian*, the meeting's attendees were “across the board from the energy sector including not only coal industry executives but also some from oil and gas industry, manufacturers and supplies of the energy sector generally as well as leaders of the banking and financial industry that follow and impact the sector.” [13]

May, 2012

The Guardianposted a confidential memo, prepared by a fellow at the American Tradition Institute (ATI), that made recommendations to build a national PR campaign and non-profit organization dedicated to causing “subversion in message of [wind] industry so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it.”

Suggestions in the memo included creating “dummy businesses” that would buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a “counter-intelligence branch” to track the wind energy industry. It also suggested spending $750,000 on an organization with paid staff and tax-exempt status that would build opposition to state and federal policies promoting wind power. [15]

2009

As reported at the *Huffington Post*, “in 2009, the group sued Longmont, CO over their Fair Campaign Practices Act. The city settled and agreed to drop disclosure requirements. In 2010, after the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision,WTP/ATP successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Montana Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which prohibited independent political expenditures by corporations.” [2]

E&E Legal Contact & Location

As of May, 2016, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute listed the following contact address and phone number:[40]

E&E Legal Institute

722 12th St., NW, 4th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: 703-981-5553

Office: Info@eelegal.org

Related Organizations

Here is a breakdown based on reports by SourceWatch: [9], [19]

Primary Organization	Relationship	Secondary Organization
Energy and Environment Legal Institute	Formerly	American Tradition Institute
American Tradition Institute	Partner to	American Tradition Partnership
American Tradition Partnership	Formerly	Western Tradition Partnership
Western Tradition Partnership	Offshoot of	Western Tradition Institute
Western Tradition Institute	*Doing Business as	American Tradition Institute
George Mason Environmental Law Clinic (GMELC)	Attorneys for [34]	American Tradition Institute

* According to the 2010 990 for the “Western Tradition Institute,” it was “doing business as” the American Tradition Institute. The Western Tradition Institute also filed a 2010 990 form that did not list the ATI, however they shared the same EIN.

Resources

616 news bs

PRESS RELEASE: AZ SUPERIOR COURT ORDERS UOFA TO RELEASE CLIMATE ALARMISTS E-MAILS

posted under: Climategate, Conflict of Interest, E&E Legal v. UofA, Press Releases, Schnare, Suits

For Immediate Release: June 16, 2016 Contact: Craig Richardson Richardson@eelegal.org 703-981-5553 AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and Overpeck Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable…

une 16, 2016

Contact:

Craig Richardson

Richardson@eelegal.org

703-981-5553

AZ Superior Courts Sides with E&E Legal and Orders UofA to Disclose ‘Climate’ Related Public Records Including Correspondence of Longtime Activists Hughes and Overpeck

Washington, DC – On June 14, 2016, the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, the Honorable Judge James Marner, ordered the University of Arizona to disclose certain “climate” related public records sought by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), correspondence of two U of A academics, Malcolm Hughes and Jonathon Overpack, who featured prominently in the 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records.

The University had withheld these records, dating from 11 to 15 years ago, from public view since a 2011 Arizona Public Records Law request. The request deals predominantly with climate change communications and specifically should provide further insight into development of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, activism by university professors using public resources, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The 2009 and 2011 “ClimateGate” releases of public records also were subject to freedom of information laws, and the subject of stonewalled requests prior to being leaked apparently by a whistleblower concerned over those same efforts. One of these U of A employees was a co-author of a particularly controversial paper at the center of these revelations, with his lead co-author, Michael Mann, describing the activist climate agenda in several emails as “the cause”. The other U of A employee has been at the center of this “cause” by his activism relating to and arising out of his work at the University, using University resources.

As such, these records likely include significant overlap with those withheld for years during the University of Virginia’s decade-long efforts to keep its own involvement in climate alarmism from the public.

Commenting on the decision, Dr. David Schnare, E&E Legal’s General Counsel, and lead counsel in the case, stated: “This is a landmark case that address the joint needs to ensure transparency while preventing harassment of academics. Academics have increasingly become a significant part of the policy-making process, requiring significant transparency in their activities. Judge Marner struck a wise balance.”

Schnare continued, “The decision is a straight-forward and clear factual and legal ruling, the result of deep and thoughtful efforts by Judge Marner to sort through this difficult issue, which are plainly evident in the hearing transcripts. Those hearings and the briefing in this case helped refine the arguments central to striking the proper balance of scrutiny that comes with public funding, as well as concerns inherent in the transparency which is essential to research, particularly research that serves as the basis for economically and socially significant policies.”

The Court found that the University did not “specifically identify” any “substantial and/or irreparable private or public harm” that would come from releasing the documents; without such a harm, the legislature’s clear and overriding preference for transparency and public accountability prevailed.

The Court rejected the University’s argument that “release of the requested emails would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously and negatively impact higher education in Arizona and throughout the country.” The Court did not “ignore the repeated ‘chilling effect” concerns” raised by the University, but concluded that “potential harm is speculative at best, and does not overcome the presumption favoring disclosure of public records containing information about a topic as important and far-reaching as global warming and its potential causes.”

The Court also addressed the University’s arguments regarding protection of academic freedom, holding “they go beyond championing academic freedom and, in effect, promote the creation of an academic privilege exception to [state public records law]. This is a proposition more properly made to the legislature rather than the courts.” This finding may be the most critical outcome of this case, regardless of the public education that results on this matter of great public interest.

Upon receipt, E&E Legal will begin review of the more than 1,700 emails and other documents, after which it will make them publicly available to all interested in the history of this important period during which academics demonstrated significant influence on the public discussion on global warming and the human influence thereon, and the often highly political “cause” being undertaken by academics, the IPCC and others.

Daily Caller: Feds Quietly Consider Reviving EPA’s Human Testing Program

JUN

DAILY CALLER: FEDS QUIETLY CONSIDER REVIVING EPA’S HUMAN TESTING PROGRAM

posted under: Media Coverage, Milloy, PM2.5

by Michael Bastasch Daily Caller The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) met five times behind closed doors this past year to discuss the possibility of reviving Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) experiments exposing humans to harmful air pollutants. NAS is examining the findings of a 2014 EPA inspector general reporting, which…

Press Release: E&E Legal Sues Vermont for Stonewalling Public Records Request13

JUN

PRESS RELEASE: E&E LEGAL SUES VERMONT FOR STONEWALLING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

posted under: Conflict of Interest, Green Groups, Inquisition, Press Releases, Schnare, Silencing Dissenters, Stonewalling, War on Coal

For Immediate Release: June 13, 2016 Contact: Craig Richardson Richardson@eelegal.org 703-981-5553 E&E Legal Forced to Sue Vermont Attorney General to Release Public Records Related to Conspiracy of AG’s Seeking to Use RICO to Punish and Silence Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Washington, DC – Today the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E…

MasterResource: Wind Siting Rules: Kevon Martis Testimony to the Ohio Power Siting Board9

JUN

MASTERRESOURCE: WIND SITING RULES: KEVON MARTIS TESTIMONY TO THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD

posted under: Martis, Media Coverage, Testimony, Unreliability of Wind

Posted by Robert Bradley, Jr. MasterResource My name is Kevon Martis. I am the Executive Director of the Interstate Informed Citizens’ Coalition (IICC) of Blissfield MI. I am also a Senior Policy Fellow of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute in Washington DC… Now in my case, an error in…

Daily Caller: Experts: New Bill Could Stop Executive Overreach

JUN

DAILY CALLER: EXPERTS: NEW BILL COULD STOP EXECUTIVE OVERREACH

posted under: Conflict of Interest, Horner, Media Coverage

by Kevin Daley The Daily Caller A House panel approved legislation Wednesday that ends a judicial doctrine the Obama administration regularly relies upon when promulgating new rules and regulations. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA) repeals the Chevron doctrine, which requires that courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/experts-new-bill-could-stop-executive-overreach/#ixzz4B7VbmWuN

House panel approved legislation Wednesday that ends a judicial doctrine the Obama administration regularly relies upon when promulgating new rules and regulations.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA) repeals the Chevron doctrine, which requires that courts defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the law unless their interpretation is “unreasonable.” Instead, the bill provides that a court should conduct a review of “all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules” when evaluating federal rules and regulations.

Elizabeth Slattery, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, welcomes the development.

“This [SOPRA] would really bring back a layer of oversight because that really is something the court should be providing,” Slattery told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “When a rule is injuring a citizen and they’re able to come into court and challenge it, they should get real, meaningful judicial review and not this sort of ‘Well, the agencies interpretation is good enough for government work.'”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/experts-new-bill-could-stop-executive-overreach/#ixzz4BrxldgYY}:

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/114/hr4768

read the bill	read the bill
Sponsor	John Ratcliffe, R-Texas
Total Cosponsors	113 (All Republicans)

daily caller bs batasch

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allegedly stacking a scientific advisory panel on air pollution with researchers who had received more than $190 million in grants from the agency.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) is suing EPA on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association and Dr. James Enstrom, a retired University of California-Los Angeles epidemiologist who was blacklisted for challenging EPA claims about particulate matter.

“This clearly violates the law and makes a mockery of the notion of ‘independent’ scientific review,” he said.

...

EPA relies on a panel of scientific advisers, called the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to validate the science underlying key clean air regulations pushed by the agency. In this case, EELI is asking the court to prevent the EPA from convening a panel tasked with reviewing the science behind agency regulations on fine particulate matter, or PM2.5.

EELI believes the agency has stacked the panel with researchers who will rubber stamp EPA rules regulating PM2.5. EPA also relies on claimed PM2.5 reductions for the majority of health benefits in some of its largest regulations on power plants.

Some 24 of the 26 members of EPA’s PM2.5 panel have gotten or are the current recipients of EPA grants. In total, panel members have gotten more than $190 million from the agency, according to EELI. Milloy says this violates the federal laws requiring such scientific advisory panels be “independent.”

EELI isn’t alone in pointing out potential problems with using scientific advisers financially reliant on EPA. Earlier this year, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe :{:(style="display:inline-block"):}:

74%

sent a letter to the EPA, criticizing the agency for selecting advisers who benefit from federal largesse.

In 2014, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith

60%

pointed out that many science panel members were often peer-reviewing regulations based on their own research, corroding the integrity of the peer-review process.

“Not only does the EPA pay researchers to produce controversial research that advances its PM2.5 regulatory agenda, but the agency pays the very same researchers to review their own controversial work,” said Milloy, who also runs the blog JunkScience.com and has been involved in the PM2.5 debate for years.

EPA began regulating PM2.5 in in the early 1990s, and today says there’s no safe level of exposure to the air pollutant. PM2.5 is a “mixture of harmful solid and liquid particles” that is 2.5 microns or less, or “1/30th the thickness of a human hair.” These small particles can get into people’s respiratory system and can harm human health and even lead to death after just short-term exposure, according to EPA.

In 2011, former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress that PM2.5 “causes premature death.”

“It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” she said. “If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country.”

The EPA set PM2.5 primary standards at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air on an annual average basis. Despite the strong warnings, EPA has tested PM2.5 on humans. EPA exposed dozens of human test subjects to PM levels of 600 micrograms per cubic meter — 40 times what the EPA sets as an acceptable outdoor air standard.

EPA not only testes PM2.5 on humans, they also did not fully disclose the risks of death from PM2.5 exposure — a reversal from public warnings about exposure to the pollutant.

EELI points out EPA uses supposed monetary benefits from PM2.5 reductions as the main justification for massive regulations on power plants, including the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Mercury Air Transport Standard and Clean Power Plan.

“The EPA process for commissioning and evaluating PM2.5 research has been so rigged and so biased for so long that many scientists don’t even try to get nominated for CASAC panels any more,” Milloy said. “

“We will review and respond to the lawsuit,” an EPA spokeswoman told the Daily Caller New Foundation.

For Immediate Release:

May17, 2016

Contact:

Craig Richardson

Richardson@eelegal.org

703-981-5553

E&E Legal Sues EPA for Stacking ‘Independent’ Science Panel with EPA Grant Recipients;

Watchdog Groups Asks Court to Dissolve EPA Panel

Washington, DC – Last Friday, The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for illegal formation of a key science advisory committee. The committee at issue is the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel for 2015-2018 (CASAC PM Panel). E E Legal filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of its members who include the Western States Trucking Association and Dr. James Enstrom, a Research Fellow and epidemiologist retired from the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The EPA has stacked the panel, which is required by law to be independent and unbiased, with researchers who have received over $190 million in discretionary grants from the EPA,” said Steve Milloy, an attorney and Senior Fellow with E&E Legal. “This clearly violates the law and makes a mockery of the notion of ‘independent’ scientific review,” Milloy added.

“We are asking the court to prevent the EPA from convening the panel until the panel can be formed in a balanced manner in compliance with applicable laws,” said Dr. David Schnare, E&E Legal’s General Counsel and a 33-year veteran of the EPA.

The EPA’s regulation of ambient airborne fine particulate matter, soot or dust in outdoor air also called “PM_2.5” (pronounced Pee-Em-Two-Point-Five”), has been scientifically controversial since the EPA began the process of regulating it in the early 1990s. The EPA claims that any inhalation of PM_2.5 can cause death within hours and that PM_2.5 in outdoor air kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Not only has the EPA hidden from public scrutiny for over 20 years key scientific data that its PM_2.5 regulation relies on, but also the agency stacks the legally required CASAC panel with EPA-paid researchers.

EPA’s claims about the lethality of PM_2.5 have been a primary basis for the agency’s justification of its air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone, as well as regulations key to the Obama administration’s so-called “war on coal”, including the: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Mercury Air Transport Standard and Clean Power Plan. State implementation of EPA’s PM_2.5 standards is also quite costly as evidenced by E & E Legal member Western States Trucking Association, whose own members are forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars retrofitting truck engines to comply with California state PM_2.5 emissions requirements as mandated by the EPA.

“Not only does the EPA pay researchers to produce controversial research that advances its PM_2.5 regulatory agenda, but the agency pays the very same researchers to review their own controversial work,” explained Milloy. “Of the 26 members the EPA selected to be on the CASAC PM Panel, 24 of them have been paid or are currently being paid by the EPA a total sum in excess of $190 million,” Milloy observed. “The EPA’s supposedly ‘independent’ review process is entirely rigged to advance EPA’s agenda,” Milloy added.

“Both the Clean Air Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act require that the CASAC PM Panel be independent and unbiased,” Schnare said. “We are asking the court to determine that an EPA advisory panel that operates on a consensus basis but that is 90 percent comprised of highly-paid EPA cronies does not meet the requirements of the law,” Schnare added.

“The EPA process for commissioning and evaluating PM_2.5 research has been so rigged and so biased for so long that many scientists don’t even try to get nominated for CASAC panels any more,” Milloy said. “They’ve simply given up. A case study of this is E & E Legal member and PM_2.5 researcher Jim Enstrom who, in questioning EPA’s PM_2.5 ~science, has lost professional opportunities because of the extreme biases of the EPA, CASAC and current and former CASAC panel members,” Milloy said. “CASAC is a cabal, not an independent committee,” he added.

“As the EPA is at the very beginning a new round of review of PM_2.5 regulation, as required by the Clean Air Act, our lawsuit is intended to make sure that process is conducted in an independent and unbiased manner as required by the law and expected by the public and Congress,” Schnare concluded.

see hinderaker

===

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/23/1505265/-EELI-Continues-Wasting-Coal-Money

ongoing efforts of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI) to harass the EPA were set back on Monday, when a federal appeals court denied EELI's request to file an argument that the EPA illegally colluded with groups.

EELI is claiming that the Clean Power Plan is “invalid” because the EPA communicated with green groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council during its creation. The court rejected the filing without explanation, though its decision may be because regulatory agencies frequently talk with stakeholders. Where EELI sees collusion, pretty much everyone else sees standard operating procedures.

Adding insult to injury is a recent revelation that EELI’s Chris Horner has been paid as a “Regulatory Counsel” for the now-bankrupt Alpha Natural Resources, according to Alpha’s bankruptcy documents. Horner received at least $30,600 from Alpha between May 2015 and January 2016. In February, another bankrupt coal company, Arch Coal, was shown to have funded EELI as well with undisclosed sums of money.

Next in line for bankruptcy looks to be Peabody coal, which has warned that it is close to having to file for bankruptcy protection.

We can’t wait to see how much money they’ve wasted on EELI or other fruitless denial efforts.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-deception-investigations-gain-momentum-exxonmobil-plays-victim

With several state attorneys general now investigating whether ExxonMobil misled its shareholders and the public about climate change risks, it was more than a little ironic when the company recently cried foul.

“Collaboration, collusion, conspiracy,” charged ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers, “pick a word.”

Pick a word? How about nonsense? If anyone could be accused of collusion and conspiracy, it’s ExxonMobil. But more on that later.

What prompted Jeffers’ ludicrous allegation was a meeting that took place on March 29. My colleague Peter Frumhoff, lead climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and environmental attorney Matt Pawa briefed a handful of state attorneys general, including New York’s Eric Schneiderman, who launched an investigation of ExxonMobil last November. Later that day, Schneiderman and 16 other attorneys general joined former Vice President Al Gore at a press conference to declare their support for more aggressive government action on climate change. During the event, AGs from the U.S. Virgin Islands and Massachusetts announced that they, too, would initiate investigations of ExxonMobil.

On April 15, Reuters broke the story that Frumhoff and Pawa had met behind closed doors with the state prosecutors before the press conference. The news organization had obtained emails disclosing the meeting through an open records request filed by a group called theEnergy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal).

“The previously unknown level of coordination with outside advisers offered a glimpse behind the scenes in an increasingly pitched battle between Exxon and environmental groups,” Reuters reported. “Exxon has said it has been unfairly singled out and that climate activists are conspiring to rally public opinion against it.”

Unfortunately, not only did the Reuters story fail to adequately identify E&E Legal, it also mischaracterized what amounted to a routine meeting in an ongoing legal investigation.

Confidentiality is standard operating procedure

Reuters described E&E Legal, a small, three-person nonprofit, as a “free-market think tank with ties to the Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI], whose website says it opposes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.” What it didn’t mention is that E&E Legal — which could hardly be called a think tank — is at least partly funded by the coal industry and has repeatedly harassed prominent climate scientists, including Katharine Hayhoe and Michael Mann, by filing intrusive open records requests that have tied them up for weeks and wasted hundreds of thousands of public university dollars.

What’s more, the story didn’t explain that the group’s connection with CEI is through CEI staff attorney Chris Horner, who handles E&E Legal’s open records filings. CEI has been peddling lies about climate science on behalf of fossil fuel interests for decades, and Horner is associated with other climate science denier groups as well as the coal industry, a relationship that was recently revealed by coal company bankruptcy filings.

More important, Reuters failed to clarify that the attorneys general were merely doing their jobs. By their very nature, legal investigations can entail gathering information privately from a wide variety of sources.

This is a key point. State attorneys general have the authority to meet with anyone they choose — be it a scientist, an environmental lawyer or a corporate official — in the course of an investigation on a confidential basis. In other words, there was no hint of collusion or conspiracy. Meeting privately with experts is part of the legal discovery process. Moreover, in New York — under the state’s Martin Act — the attorney general can initiate a completely confidential investigation of potentially fraudulent practices.

But that didn’t stop FoxNews.com, the Daily Caller, the Washington Examiner and the Washington Times — the climate science denial echo chamber — from providing ExxonMobil and E&E Legal a platform to make bogus charges about “collusion” and “conspiracy” in subsequent stories.

ExxonMobil’s disinformation network

Schneiderman’s investigation, and one launched in January by California’s attorney general, followed the release of documents by the Union of Concerned Scientists and reporters atInsideClimate Newsand Columbia Journalism School revealing that Exxon scientists conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and warned top management of the potentially catastrophic risks posed by global warming. Schneiderman’s staff is now reviewing the company’s statements to investors regarding those risks to see if they contradicted what it was hearing from its own scientists.

The New York AGs office also is taking a close look at ExxonMobil’s support for a network of think tanks and advocacy groups that has been spreading disinformation about climate science for nearly 20 years. Here is where questions about “collusion” and “conspiracy” come into play.

That network was exposed back in 2007 when UCS documented that ExxonMobil had spent at least $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on more than 40 climate science denier groups. The group that got the most money? CEI, which received more than $2 million. Despite the fact that it had no scientists on its staff, CEI established itself as the go-to group to provide “the other side” of a manufactured scientific debate. It is perhaps best remembered for reassuring Americans that global warming is nothing to worry about in a TV commercial extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide. The spot’s unforgettable tagline: “They call it pollution. We call it life.”

ExxonMobil publicly ended its direct support for CEI in 2005, but the company continues to spend millions of dollars annually on denier groups and congressional climate science denier political campaigns. CEI, meanwhile, may have lost ExxonMobil as a benefactor, but according to the most recent available tax records, it is still receiving money from billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, co-owner of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries.

In any case, it is difficult to determine just where CEI gets its funding these days. Much of it comes from a secretive, pass-through foundation called Donors Trust and its affiliate Donors Capital Fund. Since 2002, the intertwined funds have laundered more than $457 million from anonymous corporations, foundations and individuals and distributed that money to hundreds of anti-regulation groups, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and of course, CEI.

The First Amendment doesn’t protect fraud

As one of ExxonMobil’s top climate science denier grantees, CEI now finds itself in the hot seat. U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker not only launched an investigation of ExxonMobil for defrauding investors and the general public, he also subpoenaed communications between ExxonMobil and many of its denier network groups. He specifically asked CEI for all its climate change and energy policy materials, as well as its donor lists, over a 10-year period beginning in 1997.

CEI has filed to quash the subpoena and pushed back in an April 23 op-ed in the Washington Post. CEI president Kent Lassman and his general counsel, Sam Kazman, insisted that their organization and ExxonMobil are being unfairly harassed for exercising their First Amendment rights. A week later, the Wall Street Journal editorial board chimed in, calling Walker’s subpoena of CEI documents “a form of harassment” and “a dangerous turn for free speech.”

But the real issue is not CEI’s or ExxonMobil’s First Amendment rights. CEI, which has been exercising its right to mislead the public about climate change for quite some time, is being investigated to determine the extent to which it functioned as ExxonMobil’s paid surrogate. ExxonMobil, meanwhile, is being investigated to ascertain if it is guilty of fraud. As Attorney General Schneiderman has noted, “The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/02/13049/bankruptcy-documents-indicate-arch-coal-funding-climate-denial-legal-group

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a group best known for filing lawsuits seeking climate scientists' personal emails, has secretly received funding from Arch Coal, one of the largest coal producers in the United States. The funding is revealed in documents recently filed as part of the Arch Coal bankruptcy proceedings which list the coal company's creditors.

The Arch funding is revealed just months after Alpha Natural Resources, another coal company facing bankruptcy, was identified by *The Intercept* as providing funding to a group closely connected to E&E Legal, the Free Market Law Clinic, as well as funding directly to E&E Legal's lawyer, Chris Horner. The two organizations share staff and fellows, often working together to bring lawsuits.

Although E&E Legal is listed as a creditor, the Arch court filing does not provide any other details that would indicate the size of the funding nor when any payment or payments were made.

E&E Legal has developed a niche for filing voluminous requests for the emails of climate scientists working at state universities, including their personal emails and for work not yet completed or ready for publication. When E&E Legal doesn't get everything it asks for, it will typically file a lawsuit and take the scientist and university to court.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has said that E&E Legal's tactics amount to the harassment of climate scientists.

In one such case, E&E Legal requested fully 13 years of emails from climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck based at the University of Arizona. The university and the scientists handed over significant quantities of emails, but withheld thousands of others which they said included "prepublication data and drafts." E&E Legal filed a lawsuit against the scientists and the university. The scientists eventually won their case in the Arizona Superior Court but it is pending review by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Other leading climate scientists, including Michael Mann, James Hansen, and Katharine Hayhoe have also been subject to lawsuits from E&E Legal.

"The volume and frequency of the requests from EELI are designed to antagonize leading climate scientists, wasting their time in drawn out and frustrating lawsuits. They frankly have better things to do, and that's obviously the point of E&E Legal's campaign" Brendan DeMelle of DeSmogBlog,which tracks and reports on climate change denial groups told CMD by email.

Coal Support For Chris Horner

Chris Horner, E&E Legal Senior Legal Fellow, is the group's lead on its work seeking scientists emails. In 2014, Horner received $110,000 from a group closely tied to E&E Legal, the Free Market Law Clinic, according to the most recently available tax filings for that organization. David Schnare, General Counsel at E&E Legal, is also the Director at the Free Market Law Clinic.

The bankruptcy filings for Alpha Natural Resources, revealed by *The Intercept,* showed direct support from that coal company to Chris Horner personally, as well as to the Free Market Law Clinic.

In 2015, CMD obtained an invitation and other materials from a private and highly secretive annual coal summit, hosted by the CEOs of five coal companies, including both Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources, as well as Alliance Resource Partners, Drummond Company, and United Coal Company. Chris Horner was a speaker at the event, which also included then Republican presidential front runner, Jeb Bush.

After the event, attendees received an email signed by each of the five coal company CEOs which hinted at the coal funding for Horner's work: "As the ‘war on coal' continues, I trust that the commitment we have made to support Chris Horner's work will eventually create great awareness of the illegal tactics being employed to pass laws that are intended to destroy our industry."

That email, suggests that the coal funding of Chris Horner's work may extend even beyond Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources.

"It's very telling to confirm that E&E Legal has received Arch Coal funding since their attacks on climate science and harassment of scientists are just what the coal industry is counting on to survive," Brendan DeMelle of DeSmogBlog told CMD.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute's General Counsel, David Schnare, did not respond to numerous requests to comment for this article.

CPP

Koch-Tied Groups

There's King Coal and then there's King Koch. As with many stories involving big corporate interests fighting against environmental regulations, the Kochtopus has spread its tentacles and front groups into the fight against the CPP.

Energy and Environment Legal Institute

Enter the Energy and Environment Legal Institute (EELI), an anti-clean energy front group formerly known as the American Tradition Institute, which filed a Petition for Review in October 2015 with the D.C. Appeals Court. EELI maintains close ties toKoch-funded George Mason University School of Law.

According to a January 2015 piece published by Vice News, “The Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Lair Foundation, and Doug Lair are all listed as donors” on ATI's 2010 IRS 990 tax form. “The Atlas Economic Research Foundation has been funded in the past partly by Exxon, while Doug Lair is a Montana businessman who sold his petroleum company to one of the Koch brothers back in 1989.”

Lee Fang of The Intercept further revealed, by examining bankruptcy filings of coal mining giant Alpha Natural Resources, that EELI Senior Legal Fellow Chris Horner received funding from the company.

Stink Tanks

We’re also gearing up for E&E Legal’s appeal in Arizona state court – as mentioned in our previous newsletter, E&E Legal is contesting a recent Arizona decision, which held that the University of Arizona properly protected scientists’ files from E&E Legal’s demands for virtually unfettered access. E&E Legal has openly admitted it is seeking documents it could use to embarrass researchers.

Notably, last week E&E Legal was :{linked to covert funding}::{ by the coal industry}:– money that goes towards their work “hounding climate change researchers” with meritless legal attacks, including “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research.”

refs

Have you heard about the group that has abused open records laws to harass climate scientists across the United States? The organization behind North Carolina’s ban on using sea level science to inform coastal planning? The institution attacking renewable energy targets?

These are all activities of the innocuous-sounding Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal). Now, thanks to a scoop by Lee Fang at The Intercept, we now know where some of their money comes from.

It’s the coal industry.

We have known for years that privately funded organizations have attacked climate scientists, both in the US and the UK, to the extent that they had to set up a legal defence fund. But we’ve known little about where their money comes from, beyond efforts to connect the dots between different groups.

Now, the bankruptcy filings of Alpha Natural Resources, a large Virginia-based coal company, provide a rare window into the list of political and advocacy organizations the company has funded. E&E Legal (formerly known as the American Tradition Institute) is one of them. Other recipients include the Heartland Institute, which compared climate scientists to the Unabomber, the American Legislative Exchange Council and numerous others.

In the US, companies are usually not required to disclose this kind of spending, so public scrutiny is grossly inadequate. Trade associations and corporate front groups like E&E Legal are willing to do the dirty work that companies don’t want to associate themselves with. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists analysisfound that utility and energy companies are often unwilling to support publicly the climate change activities of the trade groups that represent them.

In a follow-up article, Fang zeroes in on attorney Chris Horner, who is connected to E&E Legal and a number of other organizations that have sought to undermine public understanding of climate science. According to the filing, Alpha provided money not only to groups with ties to Horner, but also to Horner personally.

One of the tactics embraced by Alpha-funded groups, individuals, and politicians is the harassment of scientists. In 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used an obscure health care fraud law to subpoena emails, draft research papers, handwritten notes and other documents from the University of Virginia related to the work of climate scientist Michael Mann. Even some climate sceptics described this move as a witch hunt. The university decided to fight the subpoenas and the case played out over the course of two years, with the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously ruling that Cuccinelli had overstepped his authority.

Alpha contributed heavily to Cuccinelli’s campaigns for attorney general and governor, to the tune of $163,375 between 2009 and 2013. In 2009, Alpha CEO Kevin Crutchfield gave the campaign a thousand dollars, the maximum individual contribution.

When it became clear that Cuccinelli was losing in court, E&E Legal requested the exact same documents, word for word, under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act. When the university resisted, this case also went to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the university could prevent the disclosure of documents that would harm the research process.

E&E Legal has since filed open records requests with universities in Arizona (where it also lost in the state supreme court), Texas and Illinois. Yet while they lose repeatedly, in one way they are successful: they confuse the public debate, and force universities and scientists to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves. This takes time away from research and dissuades scientists from public engagement.

Filings show that Alpha also funded the Consumer Energy Alliance, an oil industry front group, and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which is based at the home of David Schnare, the lead attorney for E&E Legal’s open records cases.

So now we know at least one company directly funds harassment of scientists. How many others are supporting these attacks?

Chris Horner is a go-to guy for a number of coal companies. According to the Intercept, earlier this summer, the Coal and Investment Leadership Forum sent an email to its membership list referring to a “commitment we have made to support Chris Horner’s work.” The email was signed by representatives of Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, United Coal, Drummond Company and Alliance Resource Partners.

How many of these companies (and others who were not signatories to the email) are sending funds to Horner or to the organizations with which he is affiliated? The public deserves answers to these questions. And it shouldn’t take a coal company going bankrupt to bring such activities to light.

Michael Halpern (@halpsci) is manager of strategy and innovation for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

===

refs

**Giant Coal Company Bankruptcy Reveals Secret Ties to Climate Denial, GOP Dark Money Groups**

:{Lee Fang:(style="box-sizing:border-box;display:block"):}:

Aug. 25 2015, 10:34 a.m.

Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal companies in America, was a player in major congressional election efforts last year — but you won’t find records of their corporate donations on the Federal Election Commission website or in any public record.

You will, however, find signs of the Virginia-based coal giant’s secret political activities buried in a creditor document filed last Thursday. The recent downturn in coal prices and high debts forced the company to seek bankruptcy protection earlier this month.

The filing lists organizations with which Alpha Natural Resources had any kind of financial transaction, including recipients of grants, creditors and contractors. The filing does not list amounts given or owed by Alpha Natural Resources. A spokesperson for the firm did not respond to a request for comment.

Alpha Natural Resources gave money to an array of nonprofit entities that are not required to report donor information. These groups were pivotal in helping Republicans maintain control of the House of Representatives and in electing the new GOP majority in the Senate.

The corporation helped fund the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a secretive nonprofit group that refused to disclose any donor information during the election last year. The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition was the largest outside campaign entity in the Kentucky senate race, spending over $14 million on television and radio commercials to successfully reelect Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in his campaign against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Alpha Natural Resources also helped finance campaign entities associated with the Koch brothers campaign network, including Americans for Prosperity, Themis Trust (a campaign data company), and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a clearinghouse used to fund a range of organizations supporting Republican election efforts. The Institute for Energy Research, an advocacy group founded by Charles Koch that lobbies in support of fossil fuel subsidies and against renewable energy policies, had a financial relationship with Alpha Natural Resources.

The company, with operations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Wyoming, had once been viewed as a coal industry powerhouse. In 2011, Alpha Natural Resourcesborrowed $7.1 billion to purchase Massey Energy after 29 employees were killed in Massey’s Upper Big Branch mine.

The creditor filing reveals a number of other revelations about Alpha Natural Resource’s undisclosed political operation. For instance, the company gave money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association that spent over$35 million during the election last year, largely to benefit GOP candidates. It also donated to Americans Allied for Jobs and Security, a group that spent a small amount supporting Republican candidates during the midterm elections.

The company donated to a number of political groups that favor environmental deregulation on the coal industry, including the Ripon Society, a foundation to support moderate Republicans; the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Virginia; and the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit that works with lobbyists to develop business-friendly template legislation used by state lawmakers. ALEC recently produced template legislation to block states from submitting compliance plans with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, new regulations designed to combat carbon emissions.

The bankruptcy filing lists “Arthur C Brooks C/O AEI 1150 17th St. NW Washington DC,” which appears to be Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has campaigned against the EPA’s new rules governing carbon emissions from coal power plants.

Alpha Natural Resources backed the Heartland Institute, an Illinois-based think tank that aggressively works to counter the belief in climate change. The Heartland Institute, which organizes an annual gathering of climate change deniers, gained notoriety in 2012 for sponsoring billboards comparing those who believe in climate change to the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and cult leader Charles Manson.

Bankruptcy filings are providing a rare window into the subterranean world of money in politics. Earlier this year, The Interceptused a bankruptcy filing to reveal secret donations to dark money campaign entities and think tanks made by Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit college with a high rate of student defaults. Many of the beneficiaries of Corinthian Colleges’ secret money helped the school beat back regulations governing the $1.4 billion per year in federally backed student loans the company received.

Just days after his reelection victory, made possible with the support of the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, Sen. McConnell announced that his top priority would be to rein in the EPA’s power to regulate coal companies. Alpha Natural Resources considered the EPA rules a top priority as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/14/3680340/colorado-renewable-energy-decision/

Colorado’s ambitious renewable energy standard will remain in place thanks to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Monday shielded the law from a legal attack by a right-wing litigation group.

Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge NeilGorsuch affirmedthat the clean energy law does not violate the U.S. Constitution, as the plaintiff Energy and Environment Legal Institute had argued. E&E Legal, formerly called the American Tradition Institute, is a nonprofit that advocates a “free-market approach” to environmentalism. It is the same entity that launched a high-profile lawsuit against climate scientist Michael Mann seeking to view his email communications, an effort which ultimately failed.

The case over Colorado’s renewable energy law was E&E Legal’s second most high-profile case. The group launched the lawsuit back in 2011, arguing that the clean energy standard — which requires utilities to get 30 percent of the electricity they sell to Colorado customers from renewable sources — violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

More specifically, the group said that the law unfairly harmed out-of-state businesses. Colorado relies on other states to get a good portion of its electricity, the group argued, and therefore out-of-state coal producers would be disproportionately harmed.

Judge Gorsuch disagreed, saying that while out-of-state coal producers would likely be hurt, it wasn’t disproportionate. Indeed, financial harm to fossil fuel companies would likely be equal across the board.

“To be sure, fossil fuel producers like [E&E Legal]’s member will be hurt,” Judge Gorsuch wrote. “But as far as we know, all fossil fuel producers in the area served by the grid will be hurt equally and all renewable energy producers in the area will be helped equally. If there’s any disproportionate adverse effect felt by out-of-state producers or any disproportionate advantage enjoyed by in-state producers, it hasn’t been explained to this court.”

Gorsuch also noted that if the mandate raises electricity prices for Colorado residents, that didn’t matter either — because Colorado voters had approved the law in 2004 with “overwhelming support.”

“That’s a cost they are apparently happy to bear,” he wrote.

Colorado is a national leader in clean energy, in part due to the state’s ambitious renewable energy standard. The state is home to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is the federal government’s primary research facility for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

E&E Legal did not respond to ThinkProgress’ requests for comment on Tuesday. But David Schnare of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, which represented the group, told Law360 that it would likely not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Either way, Schare reportedly said they were disappointed in the ruling, and that Judge Gorsuch failed to consider many of their points regarding constitutionality.

“They simply ignored our arguments,” he reportedly said. “They did not cite or mention or discuss any of our arguments or our cases. They had ignored the fact that we had undercut their argument and shown it wasn’t a valid point.”

The ruling was a win not only for the law, but for environmental groups looking to promote renewable energy in Colorado. In a statement, the group Conservation Colorado said the ruling would ensure the protection of public health via cleaner air and continued reduction of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

“Today is a good day for renewable energy in Colorado and our efforts to clean our air and combat climate change,” Carrie Curtiss, Conservation Colorado’s deputy director said. “It is time for the climate deniers and dirty energy lobby to end their frivolous lawsuits and recognize that clean, renewable energy is here to stay.”

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 26, 2015 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN CLIMATE

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD

Our pals at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute issued the following press release today, which I post here in full:

For Immediate Release:February 26, 2015

Contact:

Craig Richardson

Richardson@eelegal.org

703-981-5553

Following Rep. Grijalva Inspiration, E&E Legal Files FOIA Request with the University of Delaware Seeking Records Relating to the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), in conjunction with the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FMELC) and the Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), filed a Delaware Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) with the University of Delaware related to Dr. John Byrne,Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and Distinguished Professor of Energy and Climate Policy.

Specifically, the FOIA request seeks documents describing the University of Delaware’s policy or policies relating to disclosure applying to Dr. Byrne; records in the University’s possession relating to outside funding, grants, or other contributions made to support Dr. John Byrne’s work at or relating to the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy; records involving Dr. Byrne’s outside funding, including consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary and other compensation or monies given to Dr. Byrne which did not originate with the University itself; financial disclosure forms in which Dr. Byrne lists the University of Delaware or the State of Delaware as his affiliation; and records reflecting Dr. Byrne’s total annual compensation for each year at the University of Delaware.

Those who have followed recent news reports may notice that this FOIA request was inspired by and even replicated the request that U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) made to seven universities, including Delaware. In his letters, Congressman Grijalva notes that the “disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institute’s name…[C]onflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.” Although the University responding to Rep. Grijalva is discretionary, processing FOIA requests from Delaware citizens is not.

“We certainly appreciate Congressman Grijalva’s rhetoric about the importance of disclosure and transparency,” said Chris Horner, E&E Legal Senior Legal Fellow and the attorney who filed the FOIA request on behalf of the three organizations. “His insistence that the Constitution compels him to demand these records — citing to no authority for why the universities should provide them — so moved us that we followed in his footsteps, if in our case by proceeding under Delaware law.”

It is possible that Representative Grijalva assumes that congressional letterhead carries authority to insist such demands be satisfied. Regardless, E&E Legal, FME Law and CRI appreciate the Congressman’s enthusiasm that the University dedicate itself to producing such records.

The groups far more narrowly tailor the period of time covered by their request, otherwise modeled after Rep. Grijalva’s nearly verbatim (also changing of course the party whose records are involved, which we are confident is not material to whether records should be released). The requesters look forward to the University of Delaware taking to heart Rep. Grijalva’s embrace of transparency, and satisfying this request made pursuant to Delaware’s statute which implements the legislature’s determination that, for institutions including the University, “it is vital that citizens have easy access to public records in order that the society remain free and democratic”. FOIA § 10001.

“We have followed Rep. Grijalva’s footsteps for our request, if under actual statutory making our request, unlike the Congressman’s, not discretionary. UDel has provided records in the past to Greenpeace, and we are confident that the State of Delaware will comply with this request,” concludes Horner.

Heh. By the way, learning some fun things about Rep. Grijalva, and his lead “investigator” for this witch hunt, Vic Edgerton, who turns out to be a former Green Party candidate for local office in Connecticut, because, he said at the time, he needed to shine a light on issues Democrats ignore. Edgerton also previously worked for Keith Ellison, and Dennis Kucinich. He clearly knows how to pick leading statesmen.

Stay tuned. More to come

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/

On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists’ correspondence and prepublication work.[1] In particular, in Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., the court upheld the University’s decision to deny large portions of open records requests by Energy & Environment Legal (known as E&E, and formerly named the American Tradition Institute or ATI), a group that has repeatedly sought to use open records laws to access troves of researchers’ private files.[2] E&E has been described as having“a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations” in part through “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research,” and the group has been linked to the fossil fuel industry, “major conservative players,” and “organizations opposing action on climate change.”[3]

State and federal open records laws promote government transparency by allowing citizens to request administrative records, with exemptions for national security, trade secrets, and similar issues. But open records laws have also become common tools of those seeking to harass scientists,[4] and open records requests for large swaths of documents (including private emails) have been made on scientists employed by the government or public universities, or who otherwise receive public funding. The scientists must then review and produce potentially thousands of documents – sometimes in a matter of days, depending on the applicable laws – or marshal a legal response explaining why the requests are invalid.

In the Arizona case, E&E filed multiple requests under Arizona’s open records laws for the files of University of Arizona climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, seeking thirteen years of documents – including emails dating back to the 90s. (E&E has also unsuccessfully gone after Dr. Michael Mann’s emails in Virginia,[5] as well as many others.[6]) The University of Arizona produced some documents but denied release of several thousand others.[7] The University stated the withheld documents contained protected intellectual property, including trade secrets and prepublication data and drafts;it also applied Arizona’s general records exemption that it was “in the best interests of the state” to withhold the documents.[8] The University argued that releasing the scientists’ files would undermine academic collaboration and chill researcher correspondence – particularly between publicly funded scientists and privately funded ones, who are not at risk of such disclosure. This in turn would harm the scientific process and reduce the competitiveness of Arizona’s public universities, as researchers would become more reluctant to work at Arizona public universities or with public university scientists.[9]

E&E contested this decision and initiated litigation. In its Amended Complaint, E&E stated it was conducting a “transparency project,” which it claimed was necessitated in large part by its interpretation of emails released in the so-called “Climategate” hacking.[10] In particular, E&E claimed that certain hacked emails involving the University of Arizona scientists and others indicated misdeeds worthy of further scrutiny,[11] ignoring that all official investigations related to “Climategate” had shown no misconduct.[12] E&E also claimed any fear that releasing emails would “chill the creative efforts of faculty” was “unfounded” and it asserted instead that protecting researcher records actually “encourages and rewards misbehavior.”[13]E&E also acknowledged its requests sought, in part, documents that “embarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.”[14]

The University of Arizona countered that protecting research correspondence and pre-publication work “is necessary to ensure Arizona’s great public universities continue their traditions of excellence in research and scholarship…. E&E’s claim threatens to rupture ordinary and customary expectations of academic confidentiality, and a ruling in favor of E&E will inevitably harm Arizona’s public universities and the scholars working in them.”[15] The University also stated that E&E was seeking “to attack [researchers’] science, criticize their interactions with each other and publicly assault how they speak about or defend themselves against the increasingly small group of outliers who continue to deny man’s role in global climate change…. E&E request[s] that the Court help it police and control the conduct of climate scientists.”[16] The University argued that, ultimately, E&E’s “briefs and other public pronouncements reveal a plan to harass scientists whose views do not accord with those of E&E and its allies, or who simply do not play by the rules of etiquette E&E nominated itself to enforce.”[17]

In its March 24 decision, the Pima County Court analyzed whether the University of Arizona had committed an abuse of discretion in denying E&E’s records requests, and it sided with the University. The court found that the University could properly protect “prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary” as well as prepublication peer review work because the University was justified in concluding that, as is prohibited by Arizona law, “release of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer.”[18] The court also noted that the “volume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting,” and the court acknowledged that it spent “[m]any hours” of its own reviewing 90 “technical and esoteric” sample emails – a small fraction compared to the other 1700+ withheld emails – with “at least one [sample email] exceeding 800 pages in length.”[19]

Despite losing in court, E&E was still able to create considerable damage through this litigation: the scientists had to pull and go through their records from the late 90s on, including hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and attachments.[20] Dr. Hughes said it took him over ten weeks to go through the massive number of documents E&E was seeking, taking him away from hisresearch for a full summer (the time that he would normally use to focus on his research because he teaches during the academic year).[21] The University and the public court system also spent a substantial amount of time and money during the years of litigation.

Nonetheless, this recent Arizona decision is a significant victory. Combined with the 2014 Virginia Supreme Court decision in Dr. Mann’s case – which held that releasing faculty files could cause “harm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality and impairment of free thought and expression”[22] – the decision bolsters the consensus among courts that abusive records requests are not a permissible use of open records laws and only harm the scientific endeavor. Unfortunately, this growing consensus has not yet stopped groups like E&E, which is committed to “peppering universities around the country” with open records requests[23] – including another one dated February 27, 2015, seeking additional records concerning the same two University of Arizona scientists.[24]

For more information on attacks on scientists, please visit http://climatesciencedefensefund.org

Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously assisted with the representation of Dr. Mann in his Virginia open records litigation.

[1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf

[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/climate-change-american-tradition-insitute

[4] http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VRdv7Eu0HKE

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/04/17/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case/

[6] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails/

[7] Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014. Cited court filings are available from the author upon request. See also Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.

[8] Letter from the University of Arizona to ATI (now known as E&E) dated February 5, 2013.

[9] Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.

[10] http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VRiv1ku0HKF

[11] Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.

[12] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uk-police-close-climategate/

[13] Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.

[14] Petitioners’ Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.

[15] Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.

[16] Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.

[17] Respondents’ Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.

[18] https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf

[19] https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/19966054.pdf

[20] Respondents’ Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.

[21] Conversation with author.

[22] http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1130934.pdf

[23] http://eelegal.org/?p=2958

[24] http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/EELI-FME-Law-AORA-Research-Funding-Conflicts-request-U-of-A.pdf

REQUEST UNDER THE ARIZONA PUBLIC RECORDS LAW February 27, 2015 Office of the Custodian of Public Records University of Arizona 1030 North Mountain P.O. Box 210134 Tucson, AZ 85721-0134 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Custodian of Records: The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, together with the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, as co-requesters, respectfully submit this request for public records ("Request") pursuant to Title 39, Chapter 1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and Chapter 6 from the Arizona Agency Handbook. For purposes of this Request, “records” encompasses, “all books, papers, maps, photographs or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including prints or copies of such items produced or reproduced on film or electronic media.” A.R.S. §41-1350. Please produce copies of records responsive to the following Request: 1. All documents describing the University of Arizona’s policy or policies relating to disclosure that apply to faculty members Jonathan Overpack and/or Malcolm Hughes; 2. All records in the University’s possession relating to outside funding, grants, or other contributions made to support Jonathan Overpack’s or Malcolm Hughes’ work at or relating to the University of Arizona; 3. Please provide all records reflecting Jonathan Overpack and Malcolm Hughes’ sources of external funding. For purposes of this request, “outside funding” includes, but is in no way limited to, consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary and other compensation or monies given to these two faculty members which did not originate with the University itself. Please include records reflecting: a. The source of funding; b. The amount of funding; c. The reason for receiving the funding;; d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant; e. Communications regarding the funding. 1 3. Please provide all financial disclosure forms in which Jonathan Overpack and/or Malcolm Hughes list the University of Arizona or the State of Arizona as their affiliation; 4. Records reflecting Jonathan Overpack’s and Malcolm Hughes’s total annual compensation for each year at the University of Arizona. Records responsive to ## 1-3 above will be dated from January 1, 2013 through the date you process this request. Records responsive to #4 will be dated from January 1, 2007 to the present. Release of these records is very much in the public interest. A recent New York Times article highlighted relevant issues, which the congressman representing Tucson, Rep. Raul 1 Grijalva,asserts prompted him to send a similar request for records from your sister school, Arizona State University, regarding Dr. Robert Balling, an ASU faculty member performing work related to that of Profs. Hughes and Overpeck. 2 With all of the attention your congressman’s move has already gathered, it seems reasonable to assume therefore that this request reads quite familiarly to you. The sole distinctions between our request and the requests Rep. Grijalva made to several universities including ASU are, first, that we far more narrowly tailor our request (it otherwise replicates Rep. Grijalva’s near verbatim); second, our request is made pursuant to statutory authority, implementing the legislature’s determination that access to public records is in the best interests of the State of Arizona. We incorporate by reference Rep. Grijalva’s assertions of the importance to the public interest that information of this nature be available regarding those who inform this important issue. This is made more true in the case of those working at taxpayer-funded institutions.

Posted in Litigation, State Law - See more at: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2015/03/31/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence/#sthash.3qjYTdi4.dpuf

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund!

The past month saw an important victory for protecting climate scientists: in a bellwether decision, an Arizona state court upheld safeguards for climate scientists facing legal attacks. For years, E&E Legal (formerly named ATI) has been “filin g nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research,” including litigation to access huge swaths of researcher records through open records laws. But on March 24, a court validated the University of Arizona’s decision to deny E&E’s sweeping open records requests for troves of climate scientists’ private files. (E&E / ATI’s other open records attacks include a Virginia lawsuit for years of Dr. Michael Mann’s files – a case we assisted with and which the Virginia Supreme Court denied last year.)

In the Arizona litigation, the university determined that E&E only wanted the records so it could “attack [researchers’] science, criticize their interactions with each other and publicly assault how they speak about or defend themselves against the increasingly small group of outliers who continue to deny man’s role in global climate change.” The university denied release of the records to E&E because the “release of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or office,” as prohibited by Arizona law. The Arizona court found that the university was warranted in protecting the scientists’ emails. The scientists were represented by attorneys for the university, and we were actively engaged in this litigation, including attending the court hearing for this decision. For more on this case, please read our post on the Columbia Climate Law Blog.

This is a significant win, but the battle to protect climate scientists against legal harassment is far from over. We frequently hear from climate scientists who are dealing with abusive open records requests and other legal attacks, and we provided assistance to several new scientists this past month.

Upcoming event: On May 7, CSLDF will host talks at Columbia Law School about fighting back against legal attacks on climate scientists. Michael Gerrard, Peter Fontaine, and Naomi Oreskes are scheduled to speak, and the event is open to attorneys from all fields.

===

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_%26_Environment_Legal_Institute

he Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) (formerly the American Tradition Institute (ATI)) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit headquartered in Washington, DC; and formerly also headquartered in Colorado. According to its website, "In September 2013, E&E Legal’s Board of Directors voted to to refine its focus primarily to the area of strategic litigation, and to change its name in order to reflect more accurately its work in the legal arena."^[1] The name "American Tradition Institute" and that of its 501(c)(4) partner organization "American Tradition Partnership"/"Western Tradition Partnership" (ATP/WTP) are prominently associated with a controversy over campaign finance during the 2010 elections. According to the Huffington Post, "During the 2010 elections, the Montana Commission of Political Practices found that the organization broke state campaign laws by failing to register as a political committee or report its donors and spending. The state suggested WTP/ATP was involved in corruption and money laundering."^[2]

According to its mission statement, E&E Legal is "engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues" and "seeks to address and correct onerous federal and state governmental actions that negatively impact energy and the environment. E&E Legal advocates responsible resource development, sound science, respect for property rights, and a commitment to markets as it holds accountable those who seek excessive and destructive government regulation that’s based on agenda-driven policy making, junk science, and hysteria."^[1]

The group's website at one time stated that it "is part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation." The group has "connections with the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence," reported the Institute for Southern Studies in October 2011.^[3]

In 2011, E&E Legal (then ATI) sued the University of Virginia to get access to the emails of climatologist Michael Mann.

[hide]

3 Disciplinary Actions
- 3.1 2010 Montana Ruling

Background

When ATI was formed in 2009/2010, it sprung from a 501(c)(4) group called the Western Tradition Partnership, which was formed in Colorado in 2008.

"The Western Tradition Partnership (WTP)...[was] a political advocacy group backed primarily by the energy industry. It was first registered as a Colorado nonprofit [501(c)(4)] in 2008 by Scott Shires, a Republican operative who pleaded guilty that same year to fraudulently obtaining federal grants to develop alternative fuels."^[4]

"In 2010 WTP changed its name to American Tradition Partnership (ATP), and announced that it had launched the American Tradition Institute, a 501(c)(3) think tank that would be "battling radical environmentalist junk science head on." The "junk science" ATP seems most concerned with is what the US National Academy of Sciences says should now be regarded as "settled facts" -- that the Earth is warming and humans are the likely cause."^[4]

Activities

Subverting Wind Power

On May 8, 2012, the Guardian posted a confidential memo prepared by a fellow of then-ATI that advises how to build a national movement of wind farm protesters. Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of [wind] industry so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it." It suggests setting up "dummy businesses" to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a "counter-intelligence branch" to track the wind energy industry. It also calls for spending $750,000 to create an organization with paid staff and tax-exempt status dedicated to building public opposition to state and federal government policies encouraging the wind energy industry.

The proposal was discussed at a meeting of self-styled 'wind warriors' from across the country in Washington DC in February 2012. Participants included members of conservative groups such asCommittee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Tea Party Patriots.

The proposal was reviewed by John Droz Jr., a senior fellow at ATI, for discussion at the Washington meeting, which he also organised. ATI's executive director, Tom Tanton, told the Guardian that Droz had acted alone on the memo, although he remains a fellow at ATI. Droz is a longtime opponent of wind farms, arguing that the technology has not yet been proven and that wind technology should not receive government support. He claims 10,000 subscribers to his anti-wind-power email newsletter. In a telephone interview, Droz said the Washington strategy session was his own initiative, and that neither he nor any of the participants had been paid for attending the session.^[5]

2011 Colorado Lawsuit Over Renewable Energy Standard Mandate

On April 4, 2011, then-ATI, the American Tradition Partnership and plaintiff Rod Lueck sued the State of Colorado and several officials over the constitutionality of the state’s Renewable Energy Standard mandate. The RES requires the state’s major utilities (mainly Xcel Energy) to obtain 30 percent of their power generation from renewable sources by the year 2020.

The group also released a 2011 report with Beacon Hill Institute in favor of repealing Ohio's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, arguing that renewable energy would drive up electricity costs and hurt the state economy. The repeal did not move forward.

2011 Michael Mann E-mails

In 2011, then-ATI issued a FOIA request to the University of Virginia for emails sent by climate scientist Michael Mann during his tenure at that university. On May 25, 2011, an agreement was reached in which UVA agreed to release 9000 documents to ATI within 90 days.^[citation ^needed]

But on November 2, 2011, a Virginia county circuit judge issued a procedural ruling^[6] that was "a huge setback for ATI":

"The court allowed that there was reason for UVA to reopen the protective order before the court. The original protective order would have allowed ATI to review the emails themselves. That court order is now invalid. ATI will not see the exempt emails. ...Now, a neutral party will be able to see the emails, not ATI. The neutral party must be agreed upon by all parties...", Scott Mandia reported Michael Mann saying.^[7], ^[8]

What had changed? University of Virginia court filings^[9][10] had argued that ATI publicity and actions of ATI principals David W. Schnare and Christopher Horner - who were both the attorneys and the petitioners in this case - had raised questions about whether with these dual roles they could be trusted to abide by the previous ruling's requirement to keep the content of the exempt emails private.^[11] See [Schnare's SourceWatch page for his response.]

In July 2012, the Guardian reported that ATI had begun seeking the release of scientists' communications with specific journalists -- the first time the media was being drawn into FOIA requests concerning climate science. The list of news organizations includes the New York Times, the Associated Press, Frontline, and the Guardian.^[12]

2009 Colorado Campaign: Corporate Money and Disclosures

"In 2009, the group sued Longmont, CO over their Fair Campaign Practices Act. The city settled and agreed to drop disclosure requirements. In 2010, after the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, WTP/ATP successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Montana Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which prohibited independent political expenditures by corporations."^[4]

Disciplinary Actions

2010 Montana Ruling

"During the 2010 elections, the Montana Commission of Political Practices found that the organization broke state campaign laws by failing to register as a political committee or report its donors and spending. The state suggested WTP/ATP was involved in corruption and money laundering. They found that it solicited unlimited contributions to support candidates and then passed them through a "sham organization," the Bozeman-based political action committee The Coalition for Energy and the Environment that ran attack ads against Democrats. WTP told corporations that it aimed to combat "radical environmentalists" and "beat them at their own game" and that their contributions would remain secret."^[4]

Funding and IRS Status

American Tradition Institute was the dba name of the Western Tradition Institute 501(c)(3). Guidestar lists it as EIN #264239065, ruling date 07/2009. The IRS still reports the group with that EIN as being called the "Western Tradition Institute" as of March 2014, despite two intervening name changes.^[13]

E&E Legal does not fully disclose its funders. However, the following list of its 2010 funders revealed by the Institute for Southern Studies:^[14]

American Tradition Partnership (ATP, ATI's sister organization): $40,000
Atlas Economic Research Foundation: 5,000
Doug Lair: $5,000
Lair Family Foundation: $135,000

The Atlas Economic Research Foundation -- which received over $1 million in funding from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2011; $122,300 from the Koch foundations between 1997 and 2008; and $735,000 from the Pope Foundation between 1997 and 2008^[15]

According to ATI's 2010 IRS Form 990, its personnel are all volunteers; whether some^[16] are paid by ATI's sister 501(c)(4), Western Tradition Partnership, is unknown, as that group did not file a return with the IRS that year.^[17] The group's 2012 Form 990 (which still, despite being filed in November 2013, lists the group as ATI despite the group's website stating that it had changed its name in September 2013) still lists no compensated employees, and "other salaries and wages" of only $8,830 for the year.^[18]

There are two versions of its 2010 IRS Form 990 online, an original return by Scott Shires available on Guidestar and an amended return by another preparer available at the Institute for Southern Studies. The original return shows 30 volunteers and 1 independent director where the amended return shows 3 volunteers and 3 independent directors (although only one is named), and there are also other differences.

The ATI website's About page says that "ATI accepts no government grants, and our financial backing has to date primarily derived from a broad and growing base of grassroots contributors."^[19] In 2010, $140k of its $186k of funding reportedly came from Doug Lair (whose family sold Lair Petroleum to William Koch in 1989)^[3] and the Lair Family Foundation. (The remainder was $1k from memberships, $40k from the American Tradition Partnership, and $5k from Atlas Economic Research Foundation).^[20]

Partnership with George Mason University School of Law

As of 2012, the George Mason Environmental Law Clinic (GMELC) at George Mason University served as the attorneys for then-ATI, according to GMELC's 2012 IRS filing.^[21] The clinic was led by the following people:

David W. Schnare, Law Clinic Director and Board Director
Steven Gold, Board Director
Michael Thompson, Board Director
Christopher C. Horner, Litigation Attorney

As of May 2013, the billable hours for then-ATI cases were shared between ATI and GMELC, with the division being made on a case-by-case basis.^[21]

GMELC is now known as the "Free Market Environmental Law Clinic" (FME Law). According to its website, "the Directors of FME Law engaged in a friendly and supportive discussion with the Dean of the George Mason University School of Law and recognized that the clinic could better perform its function by servicing multiple law schools as a stand-alone clinic. The Board thus directed a name change to reflect this broadened purpose. Until completion of the legal transition to its new name, the Clinic is doing business as the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic but must retain its original name for banking and tax purposes." It goes on to explain, "It remains in close cooperation with George Mason University’s School of Law and provides both academic courses and clinical opportunities for GMU Law students and is expanding its externship program to other law schools that have a doctrinal focus on law and economics."^[22]

Personnel

Board Members

As of March 2014, the group's website references a "five member Board of Directors,"^[1] and Greg Walcher is listed as a board member,^[23] but no other board members are listed. But as of the November 2013 filing of its 2012 IRS Form 990, the following makes up its five-member board:^[18]

David W. Schnare, Treasurer
Nick Spyros, Chairman
Dennis Champion, Director
Greg Walcher, Director
Geoff Goble, Director

As of June 2013:^[24]

Nick Spyros
Dennis Champion

Former board members include:^[25]

Dan Reed
John Reed

Staff

As of March 2014:^[26][23]

Dr. David W. Schnare, General Counsel
Christopher C. Horner, Senior Legal Fellow
Tom Tanton, Director, Science & Technology Assessment
Craig Richardson, Executive Director
Amy Oliver Cooke (energy policy expert and blogger for the Independence Institute, Colorado's State Policy Network pressure group), Senior Media Fellow
Steve Milloy (founder and publisher of JunkScience.com), Senior Policy Fellow
Jenna Ashley Robinson (Director of Outreach at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and former E.A. Morris Fellowship Assistant at the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina'sSPN member), Senior Policy Fellow
George Taylor (founder of Palmetto Energy Research), Senior Policy Fellow
Greg Walcher (President, Natural Resources Group; former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources; former President, Club 20), Board Member and Senior Policy Fellow