The Issues
Moreno has spent most of her career handling environmental litigation. She began her career in the environment practice group at Hogan & Hartson, and she has also focused on education issues.
Moreno spent six years as a government lawyer with DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, but her nomination to lead that division was criticized because of her extensive work on behalf of corporate clients. “The question is: Is she the best possible person for that job, given the sensitive nature of that position?” said President of Clean Air Watch Frank O’Donnell. “It seems as if she has spent maybe more time defending polluters than prosecuting them.”
While at Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Moreno defended General Motors in a $78 million lawsuit against the company. The owners and residents of 20 pieces of land near GM’s plant in Bedford, Ind., alleged that GM’s plant released polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) that contaminated their land, and unsuccessfully sued for damages. “In this multi-firm case, I was principally responsible for formulating and implementing all aspects of a successful science-based expert team, and developing expert testimony,” Moreno wrote in 2009 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Left-leaning Think Progress also criticized Moreno for her work during the Clinton administration defending the U.S. in a suit that successfully claimed the commerce secretary’s decision to weaken dolphin-safe tuna standards was unlawful.
But her most controversial work has come as counsel for GE, which the watchdog group U.S. PIRG called “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter.”
Despite her private-sector work, Moreno received the endorsement of Lois Schiffer, who was assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division when Moreno worked there from 1994 to 2001.
General Electric
Moreno has worked for General Electric since 2006. In fact, when she was nominated as assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, she was in the process of defending GE against charges brought by that DOJ division that GE owed the government $10 million for cleanup of 800 barrels of toxic waste at a Superfund site in New Hampshire. GE argued that because it thought it had sold the waste to another company, which intended to use it for paint, it was not responsible for the cleanup. After a judge ruled against GE, the company challenged the cost of the cleanup.
At the same time, GE was involved in an ongoing challenge of the constitutionality of the 1980 “Superfund” law (formally called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) that empowers the EPA to force polluters to clean up hazardous waste sites to which they have contributed. GE argued that the law violates the right to due process. Though a federal judge ruled against GE, the company appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals in March 2009. GE would not comment on how much Moreno was involved in the case, if at all.
Moreno said she would “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of GE” without getting a waiver or exemption, and would not participate in matters involving “specific parties in which GE is a party or represents a party” for a period of two years.
