Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe. President Trump has
Speaker 1: made cutting regulations part of his agenda since the very
Speaker 1: start of his administration. Today I will sign a presidential
Speaker 1: memorandum directing the e p A to cut even more
Speaker 1: red tape on our manufacturers. Much of that so called
Speaker 1: red tape were regulations protecting the environment, and this week
Speaker 1: marked the high point of Trump's regulatory rollback of US
Speaker 1: climate change efforts. The Trump administration announced the final rule
Speaker 1: to aggressively roll back Obama era fuel efficiency standards of
Speaker 1: victory for oil and gas companies. Joining me is Pat Parento,
Speaker 1: a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. Pat
Speaker 1: explain what this latest rollback does. The rollback is from
Speaker 1: the Obama Rule, which is a combination fuel economy and
Speaker 1: emission standards rule that would have required achieving a corporate
Speaker 1: fuel average of fifty four point five miles per gallon
Speaker 1: by model year, and that would have required a five
Speaker 1: percent increase in fuel efficiency every year going forward. The
Speaker 1: Trump rule rolls it all the way back to only
Speaker 1: one point five percent per year, up to US a
Speaker 1: maximum of forty miles per gallon. When you pencil that
Speaker 1: out in terms of emissions. It's the difference between six
Speaker 1: billion tons of c O two and greenhouse gases between
Speaker 1: the Trump rule and the Obama rule. Are many other
Speaker 1: problems with the Trump rule, but the biggest one is
Speaker 1: the one you mentioned, which is this would have been
Speaker 1: the single biggest reduction in greenhouse gases of any federal
Speaker 1: policy if Trump hadn't rolled it back. So is this
Speaker 1: then the biggest step the Trump administration has taken to
Speaker 1: reverse an existing environmental policy? Certainly in terms of a combination.
Speaker 1: If I would say public health, air pollution is clearly
Speaker 1: the most serious public health treat in terms of environmental
Speaker 1: law and in terms of climate policy. Yew. This This
Speaker 1: is I guess for the Trump administration. There their signature
Speaker 1: move yet to be seen whether it's successful, but this
Speaker 1: is the biggest one. There's almost a hundred of these
Speaker 1: different policy and rule rollbacks that Trump has been pushing,
Speaker 1: but this is their biggest one. So, the auto industry
Speaker 1: is already going to increase fuel economy standards by about
Speaker 1: two point four percent a year. That's already more than
Speaker 1: what this rule requires. That's right. I've read the same
Speaker 1: statistic that you did, and so even without the rule
Speaker 1: we would be doing better. I suppose the idea of
Speaker 1: the rule is you have the flexibility not to even
Speaker 1: achieve with the market is suggesting you can do it,
Speaker 1: should do? We don't know. I suppose how all the
Speaker 1: different automakers are going to respond. One thing that's interesting,
Speaker 1: of course, is that the automotive industry is split very
Speaker 1: badly on this question. Four of the major automakers agreed
Speaker 1: with California's more stringent standards, which were very similar, almost
Speaker 1: identical to the Obama rule, and others in the automotive
Speaker 1: industry have said, well, we wanted some relief from some
Speaker 1: of the rapid pace at which we were to achieve
Speaker 1: these fuel economies, but they don't necessarily agree with us
Speaker 1: how far Trump has gone. So there's a real split
Speaker 1: in the automotive industry. Well, carmakers will be locked out
Speaker 1: of European markets if they don't keep up with the
Speaker 1: fuel efficiency standards. Right, that's right. We're now a laggered
Speaker 1: in terms of the global fuel economy improvements. At one point,
Speaker 1: we were the leaders when the Obama rules went into place,
Speaker 1: and now we're falling behind everybody else, and there will
Speaker 1: be competitive disadvantages to that. We'll see how that that
Speaker 1: all plays out, but it it certainly doesn't put us
Speaker 1: in an advantaged position. Trump said that this will reduce
Speaker 1: the price of a new car by a thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Is that true? Or will this increase the costs of
Speaker 1: driving a car? Well, it will increase the cost of
Speaker 1: driving it, no doubt, because you'll be paying more for gas.
Speaker 1: Right now, gas prices are low, but we know how
Speaker 1: volatile those prices are, and they're sure to go back up.
Speaker 1: The market's been flooded, and of course the economy now
Speaker 1: is flat globally, so there's lots of reasons why these
Speaker 1: gas prices are currently low. But over the life of
Speaker 1: the vehicle, the Obama calculation was was hundreds of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars in savings, because of course we have lots
Speaker 1: of cars and light trucks in America, and so yeah,
Speaker 1: you'd have to take a look at the life cycle
Speaker 1: cost of not just the initial costs of the automobile,
Speaker 1: but the cost to fuel it over over time. And
Speaker 1: Trump rule will definitely cost consumers money. I understand that.
Speaker 1: In a February report, the agency's own Science Advisory Board
Speaker 1: warned that the analysis being used was so flawed that
Speaker 1: it might have led the e p A to make
Speaker 1: incorrect conclude so its own science board. Yeah, the health
Speaker 1: effects of these emissions, particularly during this pandemic that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with, are really severe because they're all respiratory related.
Speaker 1: And then the number of lives that will be lost
Speaker 1: as a result of not lowering these emissions is significant.
Speaker 1: If you look at at our population that have respiratory ailments,
Speaker 1: Allowing automobile emissions is one of the major causes of
Speaker 1: asthma and all these other problems. And so you're making
Speaker 1: a decision to allow the death rate to go up
Speaker 1: in a situation where we have the technology to prevent it,
Speaker 1: and where the economics suggests you ought to be doing
Speaker 1: it anyway. So it's a very perverse policy, I have
Speaker 1: to say. And of course we haven't even yet talked
Speaker 1: about the fact that Trump rule is also going to
Speaker 1: be in conflict with California's rule, and there's a whole
Speaker 1: legal issue all around that. Right. California is already in
Speaker 1: court on that the all back of its waiver right.
Speaker 1: And if California is successful, and I think they have
Speaker 1: a very good chance of succeeding, then you're going to
Speaker 1: have a split market in the United States. You're gonna
Speaker 1: have thirteen states signing up with the California standards, which
Speaker 1: from what I've read, represents of the car market in America,
Speaker 1: and then you're going to have it another part of
Speaker 1: the country under this Trump rule, which is also going
Speaker 1: to be subject to litigation. So the automotive industry is
Speaker 1: going to have anything but certainty or predictability. Quite the contrary,
Speaker 1: it's going to be chaotic, and it's going to take
Speaker 1: years to sort this out through litigation. No litigation can
Speaker 1: be done quickly in this country. It's gonna be years
Speaker 1: of litigation. And this is headed straight for the courts.
Speaker 1: He has to go to the Supreme Court. The revocation
Speaker 1: of the California waiver. That's the first time that's ever
Speaker 1: been attempted. No administration, Republican or Democrat, over time, has
Speaker 1: ever revoked a California waiver. There's nothing in the Clean
Speaker 1: Air Act that authorizes a re location of a waiver,
Speaker 1: So that's a novel question that has to go to
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court. California and other states are
Speaker 1: already gearing up to fight this rule in court, so
Speaker 1: most likely will the judge grant an injunction to stop
Speaker 1: it from going into effect. I think there's a good
Speaker 1: chance of that. I think the chaos that is going
Speaker 1: to be shown to the court from this move is
Speaker 1: going to convince the court to put a hold on it.
Speaker 1: And twenty states have vowed to sue to challenge the
Speaker 1: Trump Rule, So you know, the courts are going to
Speaker 1: be impressed by the fact that that number of states
Speaker 1: thinks this is not only a bad idea, but dangerous idea.
Speaker 1: That's a very strong argument for putting a hold on this.
Speaker 1: Why rush this? It's gonna look rushed to the court
Speaker 1: the way this is coming out right on the end
Speaker 1: of March and in the middle of this pandemic crisis
Speaker 1: that we're dealing with. All of these factors are going
Speaker 1: to convince the court to put a hold on the
Speaker 1: Trump Rule. I'm pretty convinced of that. What part does
Speaker 1: this rollback play in the Trump administration's regulatory rollback? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean this was a campaign promise promises kept. That's
Speaker 1: been his mantra. And it doesn't matter that the scientists,
Speaker 1: the experts within his agencies say it's a bad idea.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter even when a large portion of the
Speaker 1: industry says it's a bad idea. It doesn't matter when
Speaker 1: the economic arguments fall apart after you really scrutinize them.
Speaker 1: Even the argument that this rule will produce less mortalities
Speaker 1: from traffic accidents, even that has been challenged. Documents within
Speaker 1: e p A suggested that the mortality rate could actually
Speaker 1: go up as a result of this rule. So none
Speaker 1: of the reasons that have been given for the rule
Speaker 1: stand up to scrutiny. Why would this kind of rule
Speaker 1: affect mortality rate? Well, it's a question of you know,
Speaker 1: are you safer with lighter vehicles on the road or
Speaker 1: are bigger, heavier vehicles And that's the difference in terms
Speaker 1: of fuel efficiency. And the National Academy of Science has
Speaker 1: actually did a study that said, well, over time, as
Speaker 1: you take these big, heavy SUVs off the road and
Speaker 1: hummers and things like that, your safety is going to improve.
Speaker 1: Um So you have to look at it over the
Speaker 1: longer term in terms of what kind of vehicles are
Speaker 1: going to be out there on the highway that you're
Speaker 1: running into. Literally, and the science suggests that fuel efficiency
Speaker 1: is going to make our highways safer, not less safe.
Speaker 1: If these cases find their way to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: what kind of reception might they get. We know that
Speaker 1: the newest appointees to the Court, Justices Corsas and Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: are very concerned about the impact of regulations on American
Speaker 1: businesses and property owners. They are conservative in that light.
Speaker 1: But I'm not one that is so cynical to believe
Speaker 1: that anything the Trump administration says they are going to
Speaker 1: rubber stamp they have. Yeah, they've given the President a
Speaker 1: couple of victories, particularly on the border wall and some
Speaker 1: other things like that. But when it comes to public health,
Speaker 1: when the Court has shown data that suggests that people
Speaker 1: are going to die as a result of policies that
Speaker 1: are being adopted, policies that are not justified by technology
Speaker 1: or economics, but are more justified by ideology or some
Speaker 1: kind of anti regulatory meme, I don't think the Court
Speaker 1: is going to go along with that. Right down the line, Pat,
Speaker 1: We've discussed time and time again the Trump administration attempting
Speaker 1: a rollback of environmental efforts by the Obama administration. What's
Speaker 1: left of President Obama's environmental legacy, the sort of package
Speaker 1: he put together during his time in office, Nothing I
Speaker 1: would say nothing. If you look at epic category, whether
Speaker 1: it's pollution control, public lands management, offshore protect and of
Speaker 1: marine sanctuaries, protection of these beautiful monuments out west, in
Speaker 1: all categories, natural resources, public health, environmental controls, MIPA, the
Speaker 1: Nation Environmental Policy Act, every single aspect of Obama's legacy,
Speaker 1: and you know presidents even before Obama, going all the
Speaker 1: way back, even to Richard Nixon, if you want to,
Speaker 1: all of that has been under attack. Almost a hundred
Speaker 1: rules and policies have been rolled back. Nothing has been
Speaker 1: missed by this administration. If it had anything to do
Speaker 1: with the environment or protecting public health, it was under attack.
Speaker 1: That's the legacy of this president's term. Thanks Pat, that's
Speaker 1: Pat Parento of the Vermont Law School. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcasts. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: intern Dako