From Energy in Depth:
Transparency in the Public Interest
According to the group’s website, EPA’s purpose is to “bring transparency to the realm of energy and environmental policy.” Their memo replying to the attorney general’s opposition (they refer to the attorney general by the acronym “OAG”) explains that they are acting in accordance with that mission:
“OAG has failed to offer in its papers any reason why the documents at issue are privileged, secret, sensitive, or otherwise exempt from public disclosure. The documents appear to reflect nothing more than communications between OAG and a lobbyist, where the lobbyist urges the use of the OAG’s awesome powers and taxpayer funded resources in what has proved a disastrous undertaking. The public has an absolute right to know how this came about, and how this Court has addressed the claims made by the parties. Intervention in this case is an appropriate procedural mechanism to make that happen.” (emphasis added)
In filing their motion to intervene, EPA and Schilling say they are only attempting to bring transparency and understanding to a case that has been muddled with the attorney general’s shifting arguments. EPA argues that the public – especially the New York taxpayers who footed the bill for their attorney general’s three-year investigation and subsequent “show trial” – has a right to know the information within these documents.
The Proof is in the Presentation
EPA and Schilling also fired back at the attorney general’s argument that the motion is untimely, explaining that the intervenors did not come forward earlier because they wanted to “enable a fair trial” without outside interference. They waited until the New York attorney general announced it wouldn’t appeal Justice Ostrager’s sweeping ruling against the public official in a case they fought based on evidence that doesn’t exist.
The memo also points out that EPA’s and Schilling’s motion comes “after obtaining similar ‘recruiting’ correspondence with Mr. Pawa from another Office of Attorney General.” This hints at one key document that this motion is hoping to reveal: a slideshow that Pawa presented to various state attorneys general over the years to encourage them to pursue climate litigation against ExxonMobil. This presentation was reportedly shown to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey.
Read the entire post here.