Trevor, 

You expressed interest in the background and ideology of some of the Bush Administration's appointee picks.  This is a good survey article.  
Energy-Industry's Links to Regulators, Administration Worry Environmentalists 
By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 10, 2001; Page E13 
Is the Bush administration plotting to drop lawsuits against electricity generators accused of polluting the air in violation of the Clean Air Act?
That's the fear of environmental groups as power companies rev up the lobbying turbines and some politically connected lawyers take key positions in the administration. Are these attorneys in place to execute a payback for the $12.5 million that electric utilities gave (according to the Center for Responsive Politics) to George W. Bush and Republicans last year?
One of the key issues involves a part of the Clean Air Act that permitted existing power plants to exceed the amount of pollution they disgorged into the air if the plants were in existence -- or "grandfathered" -- when the act was updated. However, if the companies made any significant renovations, they were supposed to clean up their emissions. Many companies did update their plants -- but did not clean up their emissions and, beginning in 1999, the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency sued them. The companies said the plant renovations weren't significant and they didn't have to improve emissions.
Now, the Bush administration is formally reviewing whether the lawsuits are justified. Meanwhile, the EPA is conducting its own review of the same policy and evaluating whether the whole law needs rewriting. And Congress is in the act too: This week Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) has scheduled two informal "stakeholders meetings" to broadly discuss air pollution by utilities.
At the center of much of the debate is the law firm Latham & Watkins. Two prominent officials of the Bush administration overseeing environmental issues came from Latham & Watkins. And, it turns out, Latham & Watkins has been at the center of much of the lobbying effort on behalf of the very companies being sued for polluting the air.
The two former Latham partners involved are Phil Perry, the son-in-law of Vice President Cheney and the acting associate attorney general overseeing the environment and natural resources division of the Justice Department, and Jeffrey Holmstead, the new assistant administrator for air and radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Both attorneys have said that they were not directly involved in representing the electricity companies. Nevertheless, Perry has recused himself and turned over the review to Viet Dinh, the assistant attorney general for policy. Dinh, who came to the administration from Georgetown University law school, has inherited the question of whether to continue pursuing these lawsuits, a decision that will be closely scrutinized by all sides.
Unlike Perry, Holmstead has not recused himself from his separate review. To the contrary, Holmstead is deep in the middle of the decision-making. He is writing a legislative proposal that would ultimately replace the program. The legislation is intended to be a multipronged way of addressing the various pollutants emitted by the electricity-generating industry. A primary part of the plan involves a pollution-credits trading system. Similar to a program implemented for acid rain, the idea is that polluting plants could pay more to exceed minimum standards by purchasing credits from plants that fall below standards.
That idea is very similar to one being pushed by one of Holmstead's former colleagues at Latham & Watkins, Robert Sussman, and some environmentalists think it is no coincidence. Sussman is the lead lawyer and lobbyist for a group of electricity-producing companies called Energy for a Clean Air Future. That group represents Cinergy Corp., PPL (Pennsylvania Power & Light) Corp., Reliant Energy Inc., Tampa Electric Co., TransAlta Corp., and Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
The environmentalists' suspicions were also aroused because Holmstead was a protege of anti-regulatory guru C. Boyden Gray, of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, and Holmstead had been lauded for his work on the Council on Competitiveness, a controversial regulation-cutting commission in the Bush I administration. Holmstead also was listed as the contact on lobbying documents for another power-company trade group, the Alliance for Constructive Air Policy, which included companies such as Cinergy, one of the companies he now regulates as the nation's air-pollution policy maker.
"Part of his salary was coming from Cinergy," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the environmental group Clean Air Trust. "Now he is promoting a viewpoint within the administration that is starkly similar to the viewpoint that these same Latham & Watkins lawyers are advocating for their polluting clients."
Sussman, who worked in the EPA during the Clinton administration, pooh-poohs the conspiracy theory. First, he points out that the pollution trading program has widespread support and that Holmstead's proposal looks a lot like Sen. Jeffords's pollution-trading proposal. Second, Holmstead did no lobbying work for the Alliance for Constructive Air Policy; his role as "contact" was merely to make sure the lobbying reports were filed correctly. 
"I don't think Jeff has any preconceptions or axes to grind," Sussman said. "I think he calls them as he sees them. Washington is a small town, but that doesn't mean that anything wrong is happening."
Holmstead, for his part, echoes what Sussman says. He also points out that there is no connection between the Justice Department lawsuits and his current review of the policy. He said he has carefully recused himself from any matter in which he was directly involved at Latham. Also, if he had to recuse himself from everything that the 1,400 attorneys in his law firm handled out of their 19 offices worldwide, then he would have little to do.
Meanwhile, the review of the EPA cases continues at the Justice Department. More than 20 companies are being sued throughout the country in one of the largest enforcement actions in EPA history. Much is at stake there, not the least of which is a lot of defense work for firms such as Troutman Sanders; Balch & Bingham (featuring celebrity counsel former GOP chief Haley Barbour); Porter Wright Morris & Arthur; Sidley & Austin; Hogan & Hartson; Hunton & Williams; Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; and Vinson & Elkins.
Hey, what are you guys in the Bush administration thinking? You are jeopardizing the livelihoods of hard-working, bonus-earning, $125,000-a-year, first-year associates!
Chamber Chief's New Job
Former U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief lobbyist Lonnie P. Taylor has a new job. Taylor, who is credited with rejuvenating the chamber's moribund reputation on Capitol Hill in the past eight years, is joining the District office of Atlanta-based Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy.
Taylor left the chamber as senior vice president for congressional and public affairs after he was forced out by President Tom Donahue, an incident that drew the "concern" of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.).Taylor, a native Washingtonian and a Republican, is still working out the terms of his departure from the chamber.
At Powell Goldstein, Taylor will run the government-relations practice group along with former U.S. representative Butler Derrick (R-S.C.). The firm's culture clinched the deal, Taylor said.
Hearsay emits noxious fumes every other week in Washington Business. Send your pollution credits to hearsay@washpost.com <mailto:hearsay@washpost.com>
? 2001 The Washington Post Company 


Lisa Jacobson
Enron
Manager, Environmental Strategies
1775 Eye Street, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: +(202) 466-9176
Fax: +(202) 331-4717