Podcast appearances and mentions of jeff holmstead

On this episode of the Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor, Jeff Holmstead joins Daniel Pope and Taylor Stuart to discuss greenhouse gas regulations, the controversial endangerment finding and the future of environmental policy under the second Trump administration. They delve into the origins of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases and explore its implications and the potential impact of current administration efforts to reconsider it.

Dive into the seismic shift in environmental law as the Supreme Court overturns Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. Host Daniel Pope, alongside experts Jeff Holmstead and Brittany Pemberton, dissects the implications of this landmark decision for regulatory practices and the future of agency policymaking. Unravel the complexities of this pivotal moment in legal history with insights from those at the heart of environmental regulation. Don't miss this thought-provoking analysis — visit casted.us for more insightful episodes.

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 40-year precedent established in the landmark 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.  The precedent, commonly referred to as the “Chevron Doctrine,” gave federal agencies considerable discretion to interpret laws passed by Congress when implementing regulations and policy. But with the court's new ruling, federal agencies no longer have the final say on how laws are interpreted. Instead, the judiciary will hold that power.  So, how will the new ruling impact energy policy and environmental regulation? What are both proponents and opponents saying about the court's decision? And what does this mean more broadly for the modern administrative state?  This week host Bill Loveless talks with Michael Gerrard and Jeff Holmstead about the implications of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine. Michael is the founder and faculty director of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. From 2012 to 2018, he was the chair of the faculty of Columbia University's Earth Institute. Before joining Columbia in 2009, Michael practiced environmental law in New York for three decades. Jeff is a partner and co-chair of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell LLP. From 2001 to 2005, he served as the assistant administrator for air and radiation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In the second of a two part conversation about West Virginia v. EPA, Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor host Daniel Pope talks with Bracewell partners Jeff Holmstead and Jeff Oldham about the implications of the decision for federal agencies, the Biden administration and courts as they seek to apply this new Supreme Court precedent. Jeff Holmstead is a partner in our environment, lands and resources group in our Washington, DC office. Jeff Oldham is a partner in our litigation and appellate practice in Houston and Austin.

With so many of the nation's environmental regulations being tested in the courts, technological solutions may be the most promising way to address climate change. That was the opinion offered by environmental lawyer Jeffrey Holmstead in the newest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. Read the podcast transcription here: https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/jeff-holmstead-environmental-insights-podcast-transcript-8-8-2022.pdf.

On this episode of the Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor, host Daniel Pope talks with Bracewell partners Jeff Holmstead and Jeff Oldham about the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia versus EPA and its implications for both environmental law and more broadly for administrative law.  This is the first of a two-part episode discussing this decision. Jeff Holmstead is a partner in our Environment, Lands and Resources group who joins us from our Washington DC office. Jeff Oldham is a partner in our Litigation and Appellate practice group in Houston and Austin.

In a 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, Supreme Court justices determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its authority in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Since the Thursday decision, several environmental groups have called the monumental ruling devastating to the Biden administration's efforts to facilitate a clean energy transition.  For a breakdown of the decision and its implications for climate regulations moving forward, host Bill Loveless spoke with legal experts Michael Gerrard and Jeff Holmstead.  Michael is founder and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. He has pioneered innovative legal strategies and teaches courses on environmental law, climate change law and energy regulation. Before his time at Columbia, Michael was the head of the New York law office of Arnold & Porter. Jeff heads the Environmental Strategies Group at the law firm Bracewell. He previously served as assistant administrator for air and radiation at the EPA under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005. During his tenure, he was one of the architects behind the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean Air Diesel Rule and the Mercury Rule for power plants. The pair discussed precisely how the rule curbs the EPA's power, where it stops short, and the kind of legal precedence it sets for future cases.

Daniel Pope introduces Bracewell Environmental Law Monitor and talks with Jeff Holmstead about the Biden administration's plans for climate change.

In this week's episode, guest host Sue Tierney talks with Jody Freeman and Jeffrey Holmstead. Freeman is a professor at who specializes in administrative law and environmental law at Harvard, founded their Environmental and Energy Law Program, and established the Harvard Law School’s first environmental law clinic. Holmstead is an attorney at the Houston-based law firm Bracewell LLP and a former assistant administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency; he is also a member of the president's council at Resources for the Future. Tierney, Freeman, and Holmstead discuss past "shenanigans" in presidential transitions; how a new or sitting president will prioritize goals in office, particularly during a troubling pandemic and highly unstable economy; the need for congressional action to make headway on climate change; and more. This episode continues our month-long spin-off series, “Big Decisions: The Future of US Environmental and Energy Policy.” For this series—which will air in our same Resources Radio time slot every Tuesday in October—RFF Board of Directors Chair Sue Tierney and RFF President Richard G. Newell share guest-hosting duties and talk with leading decisionmakers, analysts, researchers, and reporters about the big decisions that will impact US environmental and energy policy in the years to come. References and recommendations: "This Is the Story of a Happy Marriage" by Ann Patchett; https://www.harpercollins.com/products/this-is-the-story-of-a-happy-marriage-ann-patchett "Chernobyl" miniseries; https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl "The Rule of Five" by Richard J. Lazarus; https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674238121 "Borgen" TV series; https://www.netflix.com/title/70302482 "Schitt's Creek" sitcom; https://www.netflix.com/title/80036165 "Watchmen" TV series; https://www.hbo.com/watchmen

In this episode, Jeff Holmstead and Megan Herzog discuss the recent rule change from the EPA on emissions standards. The Affordable Clean Energy plan replaces the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The reduction in admissions standards has raised new questions: what does the Clean Air Act authorize EPA to regulate, how much discretion does EPA have in regulating emissions, which plan more closely fits the intent of the original law? These and other questions are taken up in this engaging discussion.Featuring:- Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP- Megan Herzog, Special Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts Attorney General's OfficeVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Jeff Holmstead and Megan Herzog discuss the recent rule change from the EPA on emissions standards. The Affordable Clean Energy plan replaces the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The reduction in admissions standards has raised new questions: what does the Clean Air Act authorize EPA to regulate, how much discretion does EPA have in regulating emissions, which plan more closely fits the intent of the original law? These and other questions are taken up in this engaging discussion.Featuring:- Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP- Megan Herzog, Special Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts Attorney General's OfficeVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has touted a “back-to-basics” agenda for the agency – giving states more control over their air quality compliance, and prioritizing cleanup of toxic Superfund sites, lead-tainted drinking water systems and abandoned mines. He’s done this while attempting to roll back efforts from the previous administration such as fuel economy standards, the Clean Power Plan, and the Waters of the U.S rule. However, in doing so, he faces two problems: regulations take time to reverse, and even if he is successful in reversing them he will likely continue to encounter legal challenges. How easy is it to undo a regulation? Has EPA proceeded effectively? Where does litigation on these rules stand, and what are the likely outcomes in the courts? Off the Charts host Jeff McMahon discussed these questions and more with EPIC's visiting policy fellow Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation and now a partner at Bracewell, LLP.

Hydraulic fracturing is perhaps the most important innovation in the energy system in the last half century. As a result of this innovation, U.S. production of oil and natural gas has increased dramatically. This has led to abruptly lower energy prices, stronger energy security and even lower carbon dioxide and air pollution emissions by displacing coal. That is certainly good news for our climate, and our health—with large reductions in air pollution dispersed around the country. But, while there are relatively few coal mines, conventional oil drilling sites and nuclear plants in the United States, tens of thousands of hydraulic fracturing wells have been drilled over the past few years from Pennsylvania to Colorado, Texas to North Dakota. With it being an everyday experience for many Americans, the practice has raised questions about the local impacts. Communities have reached very different conclusions about the benefits and costs, with some places banning it and others embracing it. Two recent studies have shed light on the impacts. On the benefits side, one study by EPIC Director Michael Greenstone and his coauthors found that fracking increases economic activity, employment, income and housing prices, with the average household benefitting by about $2,000 a year. However, if people’s understanding of the health impacts were to change, it is likely that this would alter the net benefits of allowing fracking. Since health is such a critical factor, Greenstone decided to dig in further by looking at the health of those born near fracking sites. He and his coauthors found that infants born to mothers living up to about 2 miles from a hydraulic fracturing site suffer from poorer health. The largest impacts were to babies born within about a half mile of a site, with those babies being 25 percent more likely to be born at a low birth weight. The United States’ continued access to the widely-dispersed benefits from hydraulic fracturing depends on local communities allowing it. How should we as a nation balance this challenge? What options do policymakers have at the federal, state and local levels? EPIC Director Michael Greenstone and EPIC’s inaugural policy fellows Jeff Holmstead and Sue Tierney explored these competing variables and the policy pathways to addressing them at the federal, state and local levels. The conversation was moderated by Axios reporter Amy Harder. This event was part of EPIC’s Energy Inquiry & Impact Series, designed to explore the latest energy data coming out of the University of Chicago and their impacts on policy discussions. Cutting-edge findings will serve as the launching pad to frame these deep-dive conversations, as researchers and EPIC policy fellows navigate ways to translate research into solutions.

On Tuesday, administrator Scott Pruitt signed the paperwork to revoke the Clean Power Plan. But what is the case for its repeal? And what happens next in the search to rein in carbon dioxide pollution?We’ve heard from many of the proponents of the Clean Power Plan over the past few months, but on this week’s episode, we talk to someone who opposed it and hear why he thought it should have never been written in the first place. Jeff Holmstead has worked on environmental issues for previous Republican administrations, including a stint as assistant administrator for air and radiation at the EPA under George W. Bush.